JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The short question, often not free from difficulty that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable under the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act'). The trial court having answered the question in the' affirmative, the Plaintiff has challenged the order in this application u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The Petitioner Ram Chandra Das and one Laxmidhar ' Laxman Chandra Das both sons of Had Das, filed Original Suit No. 209 of 1982-1. against the opposite parties for declaration of title to the suit land, for confirmation of their possession over the same or in the alternative for recovery of possession if found to be dispossessed by the Defendants during pendency of the suit and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants not to come upon the suit land. 3. The suit property was described in the schedule to the plaint as Khata No. 77, Plot No. 88- Area out of A0.08 dec. Ac 0.03. Hal Plot No. 120 with area of Ac. 0. 01 dec. and Hal Plot No. 121/1047 with area of Ac 0.02 decimals with palm, mango trees and bamboo clumps. It was alleged in the plaint that the suit property originally belonged to Gopi Das and Banchha Das, sons of Brundaban Das. Gopi had two sons, Hari and Krushna. The Plaintiffs are the sons of Hari. The Defendants are the successors of Banchha, Defendants I to 3 (opposite parties 1 to 3) are the sons of Banchha and Defendant No. 4 (opposite party No. 4) is .the son of Mohan, a predeceased son of Banchha and Defendant No. 5 (opposite party No. 5) is the widow of Mohan. According to t he Plaintiffs. Gopi and Banchha had separated in mess and property and were possessing different portions of the suit property and were using the same as a part of t heir homestead (Bari). While so possessing, Banchha sold a portion of the property in his possession to Gopi for Rs. 16/- and executed a sale deed in token of such sale. Sebati, wife of Krushna, the brother of Had, also sold her husband's share in the suit property to the latter. While so possessing, Banchha sold a portion of the property in his possession to Gopi for Rs. 16/- and executed a sale deed in token of such sale. Sebati, wife of Krushna, the brother of Had, also sold her husband's share in the suit property to the latter. Thus the Plaintiffs claimed exclusive title and possession over the suit property since the time of their ancestor, Hari Das. It was the further case of the Plaintiffs that after the death of Gopi and Banchha at the behest of the persons inimical to them,' the Defendants without any manner of right, title and possession over the suit property falsely claimed interest therein before the authorities under the Act. The Consolidation Officer, Kakatpur rejected their claim. On appeal, the Deputy Director erroneously reversed the said decision and uphold the claim of the Defendants to the suit property. Being emboldened by that order, the Defendants tried to create disturbance in their possession and, therefore the Plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs noticed above. 4. The Defendants in their counter affidavit denied the claim of the Plaintiffs. They denied that Gopi and Banchha partitioned the suit property; that each was possessing different portions of the suit land; that Banchha had sold his interest in the suit property to,Gopi for Rs. 16/- and that the Plaintiffs have exclusive title and possession over the suit property. They however admitted that the suit land was a part of their homestead and was being used by, both (the branches as their bari land. According to the Defendants, the property was in their possession jointly with the Plaintiffs and the Deputy Director, Consolidation, on due and proper appreciation of the facts of the case, accepted their claim to the suit property. On these averments the Defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The suit was filed on 14-7-1982. By that date the notification dated 29-12-77, u/s 3 (1) of the Act bringing the village Bajpur in Kakatpur police station under consolidation operation had been notified in the Official Gazette on 5th of January, 1978. During the pendency of the suit, the Defendants filed the application on 16-9.83 seeking order of the trial court for abatement of the suit u/s 4 (4) of the Act since the Consolidation operation was going on in the area. During the pendency of the suit, the Defendants filed the application on 16-9.83 seeking order of the trial court for abatement of the suit u/s 4 (4) of the Act since the Consolidation operation was going on in the area. To this application objection was filed on the ground, inter alia that the relief of permanent injunction could not be granted by the authorities under the Act and therefore the suit would not abate; that the suit land being homestead land was not consolidable and therefore no relief could be granted by the authorities under the Act in respect thereof; that the consolidation operation in the area being over there was no bat for civil court to adjudicate the controversy in the suit. 6. The trial court by the impugned order accepted the petition and, ordered that the suit shall stand abated u/s 4 (4) of the Act. The reasoning of the court below as appears from the order was that since the question of right, title and interest will have to be gone into while deciding the matter of permanent injunction Section 4 (4) applies to the suit. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the learned Munsif failed to appreciate the question in its proper perspective. According to him, the Court below fell into error in applying the provisions u/s 4 (4) of the Act to the suit. Further, since the relief of permanent injunction was not available to be granted by the Consolidation Authorities, the suit should have been held to be maintainable particularly when the suit land being homestead was non-consolidable. 8. On careful consideration, I am of the view that there is sufficient force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Admittedly, long before the suit was filed (in 1982), the village in which the suit land is situated had been brought under consolidation operation by the notification published in the Orissa Gazette, dated 5.1-1978 Therefore, the suit was not pending by the date the area was brought under consolidation operation. Admittedly, long before the suit was filed (in 1982), the village in which the suit land is situated had been brought under consolidation operation by the notification published in the Orissa Gazette, dated 5.1-1978 Therefore, the suit was not pending by the date the area was brought under consolidation operation. The very language of Section 4 (4) of the Act makes it clear that every suit and proceeding for declaration of any right or interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under this Act, which is pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending, shall stand abated. The Sub-section has no application to any suit or proceeding initiated after the notification u/s 3 (1) of the Act bringing 'the area under consolidation operation, A similar view has been taken in the case of Panchu Das and Anr. v. Jata Behera and Ors. 62 (1986) C.L.T. 556. 9. The next question for consideration is whether the suit can be said to be-not maintainable in view of Section 51 (1) of the Act which provides regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. According to the provisions of the said Section, (1) all questions relating to right, title, interest and liability in land lying in the consolidation area, except those coming within the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts or authorities under any local law for the time being in force, shall be decided under the provisions of this Act by the appropriate authority during the consolidation operations; and (2) no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an officer or authority empowered under this Act is competent to decide. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Suba Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others Section 51 which excludes jurisdiction of civil courts must be construed strictly. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Suba Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh and Others Section 51 which excludes jurisdiction of civil courts must be construed strictly. It bars civil suit in respect of matters arising out of consolidation proceedings" and "matters in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of the Act." In the present case, the reliefs sought in the suit are, inter alia, recovery of possession of the property from the Defendants and permanent injunction against them not to enter upon the land. The position is now well settled that the authorities under the Act are not competent to grant the relief of permanent injunction and a suit for permanent injunction does not abate u/s 4 (4) of the Act. The relief of recovery of possession in respect of homestead land, the nature of the disputed property in this case, is also not within the competence of the authorities under the Act. On the pleadings of the parties discussed earlier, it cannot be said that the reliefs for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction are unnecessary and irrelevant. It cannot be reasonably said that it was the intention of the legislature while enacting special stature (Consolidation Act) to oust jurisdiction of the common law forum to adjudicate dispute in relation to non-consolidable lands and leave the aggrieved party without any forum for redress of his grievance relating to such lands. From the scheme of the Act, it appears that the legislative intent was to avoid enquiry before different forums, that is, the authorities under the Act and the common law forum in respect of matters which the statutory authorities were competent to enquire into and grant relief to the parties. Therefore, in consonance with the intent and purpose of the Act it has to be held that the suit is maintainable in the civil Court. 10. On the aforesaid analysis, I hold that the impugned order is unsustainable. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the impugned' order holding that the suit abates u/s 4 (4) of the Act is vacated. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs of this proceeding.