G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the original plaintiff has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D) Chanasama against the respondents who are the original defendants. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining possession on the basis of his title claiming the are under a sale made in his favour by the Defendants It appears that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 planted to and the written statement and ultimately succeeded in obtaining such an order from this Court. Thereafter they amended their written statement and applied to trial Court refer issues Nos. 8 and 9 raised in view of the amended written statement to appropriate authorities. The issues are:8 Whether the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 prove that the suit field is fragment ? if yes what is the effect ?9 Whether she plaintiff proves that he was an agriculturist on 29-6-1968 ?the learned Civil Judge granted that application Ex. 79 and ordered that issue No. be referred to the Prant Officer Patan and issue No. 9 be referred to the Competent Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar. Aggrieved by that order the plaintiff has filed this revision application. ( 2 ) WHAT is urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that merely because the defendants have raised a plea that the land which came to be sold so the plaintiff is a fragment the Civil Court did not lose its jurisdiction to decide that question and it was therefore not necessary for Civil Court to make a reference to the Prant Officer Patan for his decision on that issue. by further submitted that unless it is shown that the land is a fragment and that notice as contemplated by sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of the Holdings Act 1947 was given transfer of the fragment cannot be said to be in violation of the Act. He submitted that except raising a plea that the suit land is a fragment no material whatsoever has been produced by the defendants before the notice under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act was given in respect of that land. He submitted that except raising a plea that the suit land is a fragment no material whatsoever has been produced by the defendants before the notice under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act was given in respect of that land. She also submitted that there in no specific provision in the Act providing for a decision of any authority on the question as to whether a particular place of land is a fragment or not and whether transfer of such a fresh is void or not. It was submitted that only for the purpose of Imposing fine and for summary eviction the Collector has been given a power under the Act to find out whether the transaction is void or not. Since there is no specific provision requiring that a question as to whether a particular place of land is a fragment or not and whether its transfer is void is to be settled decided or dealt with by the State Government or any officer or authority the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to refer the issues. ( 3 ) FRAGMENT is defined under the Act as a plot of land of less extent than the appropriate standard area determined under the Act. The State Government determines the standard area for each class of land in such local area as it may deem fit. On notification of standard area under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. for a local area all fragments in the local area are to be entered as such in the Record of Rights in such village record as the State Government may prescribe. Sub-sec. 2 of Sec. 6 requires that notice of every entry made under sub-sec. (1) shall be given in the prescribed manner. Section 7 probities transfer of a fragment except to the owner of a contiguous survey number or reconised sub-division of a survey number. The proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7 carves out such an exception but that is not relevant for the present revision application and therefore the same need not be refereed to Section 9 provides that transfer or partition of any loan contrary to the provisions of the Act shall be void Sub-secs (2) and (3) are also material or our purposes and therefore Sec. 9 as a who is set out hereinbelow. 9 (1) The transfer or partition of any land country to the provisions of this Act shall be void. (2) The owner of any land so transferred or partitioned skill be liable to pay such fine not extending Rs. 250 as the Collector may. subject for the general orders of the State Government direct Such fine shall be recoverable as an eerier of and revenue. (3) Any person unauthorized occurring of wrongfully in possession of any land the transfer or partition of which either by the set of parties or by the operation is void under the provisions of this Act may be summarily evicted-by the Collector. Other relevant Sections are secs. 36a and 36b which read as under:35 (1) No. civil Court or mamlatdar Court shall have jurisdiction to settle decide or deal with any question which is be or under the Act required to be settled deeded or dealt with its the State Government or any Officer or authority. (2) No order of the State Government or any such Officer or authority made the this Act shall be questioned in any Civil Criminal or Mamlatdars Court. 36 (1) If any suit instituted In any Civil court in Mamlatdars Court involve any issues which are required to he settled decided or dealt with be an authority competent to settle decide or deal with such issued under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the competent authority the Civil Court or Mamlatdars Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination. (2) On receipt of such reference from the Civil Court or Mamlatdars Court the competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accordence with the provisions of this Act and shall communicate its decision to the even for or Mamlatdars Court and such Court shall thereupon dispose of the suit in accordance with the procedure application thereto. ( 4 ) THE Act was inserted with a view to prevent fragmentation on agriculture holdings and to provide or the consolidation of agricultural balding for the purpose of better cultivation thereof The scheme and object of the Act is disclosed by the provisions contained in Sec 3 to 10 so far as prevention of for mansion is concerned Those provisions clearly disclose that fee legislature did not want transfer of any fragment except in certain cases or for which special provisions are made Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 9 is quite eloquent in this behalf as it makes transfer of 809 land contrary to the provisions of the Act void Not only that the Collector has been even power to impose fine on the owner of the land if be transfers the same contrary to the provisions of the Act The Collector is also given power to summarily evict and person in unauthorized occupation or wrongfully in post person of the fragment even if such occupation or possession is as a result of a purchase or transfer but contrary to the provisions of the Act. This is so withstanding the fact that he might have paid full consideration for the same. Inspite of payment of full consideration he can be depraved of the occupation or possession of the land. It is in this context that I have to consider the validity of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that there is no specific provision as we find in some other Acts providing either by way of a function of the authority or duty of the authority to decide certain questions arising under the Act. But Secs. 7 and 9 clearly imply that whenever a question arises as to whether there is a transfer of fragment or not and whether that transfer is void or not has to be decided either by the State Government or by the authority to whom the powers might have been delegated by the State Government. As pointed out above Sec. 9 authorises the Collector to impose fine or to summarily evict a person unauthorisedly in occupation or wrongfully in possession of any fragment. That necessarily implied that the Collector will have to decide first whether the transfer is contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore void or not. It is difficult to appreciate as to how without deciding those questions the Collector can either impose fine or summarily evict a person in occupation or possession of the same. Once we roach that conclusion it will have to be held in view of the provisions contained in Secs. 36a and 36b of the Act that neither the Civil Court nor the Mamlatdars Court can settle decide or deal with such questions. Once we roach that conclusion it will have to be held in view of the provisions contained in Secs. 36a and 36b of the Act that neither the Civil Court nor the Mamlatdars Court can settle decide or deal with such questions. Section 36a bare the jurisdiction of Civil Court to settle decide or deal with such questions and Sec. 36b provides that if any suit instituted in any Civil Court or Mamlatdars Court involves issues which are required to be settled decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle decide or deal with such issues under the Act the Civil Court or Mamlatdars Court was to stay the suit and refer that issue to such competent authority for determination. That is exactly what the learned Civil Judge has done after coming to the conclusion that it will have to be decided whether the suit field is a fragment or not and if it is a fragment then what is the effect of transfer of that land. Before reaching the final inclusion it will have to be decided whether the plaintiff is an agricultural or not and that will have to be decided under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. ( 6 ) IN the result this revision application is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. However as the matter is very old and there is a possibility of the hearing and final disposal of the suit getting delved it is directed that the Prant Officer Patan and the Competent Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Mamlatdar shall decide the questions referred to them as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of the receipt of the reference by them. .