Judgment G.C. Bharuka, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.2.1975 passed by Sri Aditya Narayan Chaturvedi, Additional Sub Judge, Jehanabad in Partition Suit No. 20 of 1967/19 of 1974 Mr. Shivanand Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants at the very outset has submitted that he does not propose to challenge the impugned judgment and decree on merits. But according to him, the suit had partially abated in view of section 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter, in short, "the Act" only), inasmuch as part of the properties are the subject matters of the consolidation proceedings initiated under the provisions of the said Act. On the other hand, Sri Mahendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has strenuously disputed the proposition since according to him the condition precedent for ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court or abatement of suit were not available in this case since according to him the notification issued under section 3 (1) of the Act was ab initio void and non est in law. 2. For appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, it is better to first notice the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Act which are as follows : 1. "Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. "(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Bihar. "(3) It shall come into force on such date or dates as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different areas. "3. Declaration by State Government of its intention to make scheme for consolidation of holdings. (1) With the object of effecting consolidation of holdings for the purpose of better cultivation of lands in any area, the State Government may, after such enquiries as it may deem fit, by notification in the Official Gazette declare its intention to make a scheme for consolidation of holdings in that area. "4. Effect of notification under section 3(1) of the Act. "4. Effect of notification under section 3(1) of the Act. - Upon the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 3 in the official gazelle the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, from the date specified in the notification till the close of the consolidation operation, ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) ... (b) ... "(c) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration 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. 3. A reading of the aforesaid provisions unambiguously demonstrate that under the scheme of the Act, unless the provisions thereof are brought into force by a notification in the Official Gazette for a particular area from a specified date, the State Government cannot notify any scheme in the Official Gazette with an object of effecting consolidation of holdings as required under section 3 (1) of the said Act. The provisions are clearly mandatory. Further, the question of abatement of any proceeding or suit can take effect under section 4(c) only on valid publication of a notification under section 3(1) of the Act. 4. In the present case, undisputedly the notification under section 1(3) of the Act being S.O. No. 1039 has been published in the Bihar Gazette (Part-II) at page-1131 on 10th September, 1975 enforcing the provisions of the Act but, curiously, notification under section 3 (1) of the Act being S.O. No. 189 dated 5th February, 1973 was published in the Bihar Gazette (Part-II) at page 252 on 7th March, 1973 i.e., almost two years six months earlier to the enforcement of the Act in the area in question. In the case of Municipal Board vs. State Transport Authority, AIR 1965 S.C. 458 (at 465) it has been held by the Supreme Court that if an order is required to be notified as per the enabling provision, then it docs not come into force till it is so notified. In this view of the matter it has to be held that the aforesaid notification under section 3(1) was ultra vires and inconsequential. Accordingly, it is held that issuance of such an invalid notification can neither oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts nor can abate any proceedings pending before the Court. 5. It is well established that provisions excluding jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and provisions conferring jurisdiction on authorities and Tribunal other than Civil Courts are to be strictly construed. In support of this proposition reliance may be placed on the decisions in the cases of Bhagwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 S.C. 444 (446); M/s Raichand vs. Union of India, AIR 1964 S.C. 1268 (1270); Abdul vs. Bhawani, AIR 1966 S.C. 1718 (1719); Kasturi and Sons vs. N. Salivateswaran, AIR 1966 S.C. 1718 (1719); Kasturi and Sons vs. N. Salivateswanm, AIR 1958 S.C. 507 (at 510, 511) and Upper Doab Sugar Mills vs. Shahdara Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd., AIR 1963 S.C. 217 . 6. For the discussions as above, I find it difficult to accept the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs throughout.