JUDGMENT Binod Kumar Roy. J. In terms of order dated 5-7-1991 I proceed to dispose of this civil revision application preferred by the plaintiff assailing validity of the order dated 24-1-1991 of Munsif II, Hajipur at Vaishali in Title Suit No. 103 of 1989 passing an order of its abatement under section 4 (c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Mr. Damodar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is vitiated on account of jurisdictional error at least in regard to the lands which were mentioned as Orchard in the Record of Rights which were produced by the opposite parties themselves. He further submits that the suit has been also illegally held to have abated in regard to the lands on which there was a house. 3. Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1, submits that the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the revision application himself has stated to the effect that in view of the continuance of the consolidation proceeding, the suit for partition is not maintainable and accordingly this civil revision application is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that no jurisdictional error has been committed while passing the impugned order. 4. Mr. Tiwary, in reply, submits that the statement made in paragraph 3 of the revision application has been made apparently inadvertently and, in any view of the matter, should be read along with other statements made by the petitioner which if read together will give no manner of doubt that the statements were made by mistake and/or inadvertently for which he is sorry. 5. It is true that the word 'land' as defined in Section 2(9) of the Act means agricultural land which also includes horticultural lands but this has to be considered along with the meaning of the word 'holding' as defined in Section 2 (7) of the Act and the word 'Consolidation' as defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act. According to Explanation (i) attached with Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act 'Holding' will not include the land which was orchard or grove in tile agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 3 was issued. According to Explanation (i) attached with Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act 'Holding' will not include the land which was orchard or grove in tile agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 3 was issued. Thus the Consolidation Officer lacks jurisdiction under the Act to make consolidation of the lands which arc Orchard or Grove in the agricultural year immediately preceding the year in which the notification under section 3 was issued. From the order it docs not appear as to on what date the Record of Rights relied upon by the Opposite Parties was finally published. In Bibi Maqboolan and others vs. S.K. Hasib reported in 1983 B. B. C. J. 376: 1983 PLJR 211 , a Division Bench of this Court laid down that Homestead lands unconnected with agricultural operation do not come within the ambit of the Act. 6. Whether a land is homestead, however, is a question of fact. No finding has been recorded in the impugned order as to whether the house in question which was sought to be partitioned in the suit was connected with agricultural purposes. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the view that justice requires remittance of the aforementioned matters for adjudication in the light of the observations aforementioned and accordingly the order impugned in regard to the aforementioned matters is set aside and• this civil revision application is allowed in part. The court below is directed to decide the aforementioned matters afresh in accordance with law. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to cost.