Judgment U. P. Singh, R. N. Prasad, JJ. 1. In both the cases a common question of law has been raised and the facts are almost identical not disputed. The sole question raised is whether within the meaning of Sec.4 (c) of the bihar (Consolidation of Holdings and prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1956, (hereinafter called the Act) a mutation proceeding shall abate. Section 4 (c) of the Act reads as follows : "every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated. " 2. On a plain reading of Sec.4 (c)it is obvious that every proceeding for the correction of the records is also within the ambit of Sec.4 (c)of the Act and it will abate. We have no hesitation in holding that the mutation proceeding is a proceeding for correction of Revenue records and, therefore, it comes within the ambit and scope of Sec.4 (c) of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deep Narayan Choudhary V/s. The State of Bihar, 1984 BLJR page 544, also held that mutation proceeding will be deemed to have abated under the said provision of Sec.4 (c) of the Act. The facts are undisputed in this case that during the pendency of the mutation proceeding the consolidation proceeding had started. True, as contended by the respondents that it is not a judicial proceeding and does not confer any right, title or interest but once it is held that it is proceeding for correction of Revenue records, it will abate in terms of Sec.4 (c) of the Act. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.5 has urged that this question was not raised either before the Circle Officer or before the Land Reforms deputy Collector. 3. The counsel for the respondent no.5 has urged that this question was not raised either before the Circle Officer or before the Land Reforms deputy Collector. We see no reason why the petitioner could be shut out from raising this question before the commissioner and in fact this was so raised before the Commissioner and wrongly rejected on the ground that it was not raised in the courts below. The petitioner contends that this question was agitated even before Circle Officer. 4. In a proceeding under Sec.4 (c) the act the abatement contemplated is a statutory abatement and the Court is not to proceed only on the formality of an application filed by a particular party. The facts being not disputed the provisions of Sec.4 (c)of the Act was applicable and the mutation proceeding did abate under section 4 (c) of the Act. 5. In the result, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are quashed and the application is allowed, but without costs. Application allowed.