JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a revision under Section 38 of the O. C. H. & P. F. I. Act, 1972 against a common order dated 30-3-1983 of Consolidation Commissioner in Consolidation Revision Cases No. 127 to 132 of 1983. 2. Shri J.B. Patnaik, Advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that Abhimanyu Misra (O. P. 3) is the recorded under of Plot No. 55/1877 measuring an area of 3.200 acres in village Patrapada in Puri District. This recording was made on the basis of lease case No. 477/66-67. In consolidation operation this plot is sub-divided into three plots, namely, 294, 295 and 296. 3. Abhimanyu sold this plot along with plot No. 769 with an area of Ac.0.03 of village Basuaghai by Registered Sale Deed No. 3285 dated 26-4-1976 in favour of Manoranjan Das for Rs. 3500/-. 4. Abhimanyu subsequently cancelled this sale deed by a deed of cancellation No. 3299 dated 7-5-1977 alleging fraud and non-payment of consideration of amount. 5. After cancelling the first sale deed, Abhimanyu again sold this land to Sukanta Chandra Samantaray, Dhuleswar Samantaray and Rajendra Harichandan. The sale to the first two persons was executed on 1-9-1978 and to the third on 28-3-1979. 6. In the consolidation operation these three purchasers filed objections. 7. Manoranjan Das the first purchaser sold these three plots in favour of Modern Fabricators represented by Satyabrat Mohanty (O. P. 1) and Smt. Arati Mohanty (O. P. 4) through R. S. D. No. 2072 and 2073 dated 9-3-1979 for Rs. 25,000/-. Modern Fabricators and Arati Mohanty mutated their names in Tahasil Office in 1979 impleading Abhimanyu and Manoranjan Das in Mutation Case Nos. 396 and 367 of 1979. 8. Manoranjan Das had filed a Mutation Case 825/77 which was rejected by Tahasildar on 21-12-1977. 9. In 1981 Sukanta Charan Samantaray sold Ac.1.250 in favour of K.K. Narayan Singh Deo and M.B. Singh Deo through R. S. D. No. 9354/81 dated 21-12-1981 and so also Dhuleswar sold his Ac.1.250 to Minakhi Devi on the same day by a Registered Sale Deed No. 9353/81 dated 21-12-1981. K. K. M. Singh Deo, M. B. Singh Deo, Minakhi Devi and one Rajendra Harichandan are petitioners in this case. 10. O. Ps. 1 and 4 filed objection cases 316 to 321 of 1982 before the Consolidation Officer, Pipli and their names were recorded by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 4-6-1982. K. K. M. Singh Deo, M. B. Singh Deo, Minakhi Devi and one Rajendra Harichandan are petitioners in this case. 10. O. Ps. 1 and 4 filed objection cases 316 to 321 of 1982 before the Consolidation Officer, Pipli and their names were recorded by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 4-6-1982. Against the common order of Consolidation Officer 6 appeals were filed by petitioners before Deputy Director, Consolidation Range-1, Bhubaneswar which was allowed. Against common order of appellate court, Consolidation Revision Case 127 to 132/83 were filed by opposite parties 1 and 4 which was allowed in their favour by a common order passed by Consolidation Commissioner. Hence this revision. 11. Shri J.B. Patnaik argues that enquiry by Amin and Consolidation Officer was done behind the back of the petitioners. Therefore, appeal cases 44/1982 to 50/1982 (except 46) were filed by petitioners before the Deputy Director, Bhubaneswar Range-I. Appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioners. Deputy Director, Consolidation held that Manoranjan Das had no title as the registered sale deed is void having been registered in Bhubaneswar Sub-Registrar's Office instead of Tahasil. 12. Against the order of Deputy Director, Consolidation, opposite parties filed revision cases Nos. 127 to 132 & 1983 before the Consolidation Commissioner. Commissioner, Consolidation allowed these revision and set aside the appellate orders and upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer. Hence this revision by the petitioners. 13. Shri J.B. Patnaik argues that the first sale deed executed by Abhimanyu is favour of Manoranjan is void because village Patrapur was within the jurisdiction of Jatni Sub-Registration Office at the time of sale. It was falsely stated in the registered sale deed that 2 decimals of land in village Basuaghai under the jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar was Sub-Registrar's Office was also sold. This plot is numbered 769 in Khata No. 49 in Registered Sale Deed. There is no such plot number in this Basuaghai village. He produced the Record-of-Right of this village and Khata. Therefore, he argues that this is fraud to get document registered in Bhubaneswar Sub-Registrar's Office. He relies on AIR 1921 the Privy Council 8 wherein it has been held that registration is void where the registration is done in wrong Sub-Registration Office. As such no title passes to Manoranjan and from him to opposite parties 1 and 4. 14. Therefore, he argues that this is fraud to get document registered in Bhubaneswar Sub-Registrar's Office. He relies on AIR 1921 the Privy Council 8 wherein it has been held that registration is void where the registration is done in wrong Sub-Registration Office. As such no title passes to Manoranjan and from him to opposite parties 1 and 4. 14. Consolidation Officer found during enquiry in the presence of both the parties that the petitioners are in possession. Shri Patnaik, therefore, argues that sale without delivery of possession is not complete under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Petitioners have constructed house on this plot and are also occupying this. 15. Shri Patnaik files rent receipts which show that Abhimanyu paid rent upto date. Therefore, he says that the second sale deed may be recognised. 16. Shri Y. S. N. Murty, Advocate appearing for the opposite parties 1 and 4 argues firstly that Board of Revenue has no power to hear revision against the order of the Consolidation Commissioner as Section 38 does not confer any revisional jurisdiction. Suo motu powers are vested only in Consolidation Commissioner under Section 37(1) and under Section 36(2) Consolidation Commissioner's order is final. Board of Revenue cannot even call for records under Section 37(2). Such powers vests only in Consolidation Commissioner. Therefore, he argues that this revision is not maintainable. 17. Shri Murty further argues that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act delivery of possession as needed only if consideration is less than Rs. 100/-. If the consideration exceeds Rs. 100/- delivery is not relevant for the transfer of ownership. He relies on AIR 1957 Punjab 238. 18. Shri Murty argues that petitioner also purchased these lands through R. S. D. in Bhubaneswar Sub-Registration Officer. Sri J. B. Patnaik points out that when the petitioners purchased this land, these villages came under the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar's Office, Bhubaneswar from Jatni S. R's Office by Government Notification No. Regn. (C)/17/76/86602/R dated 9-11-1976. 19. Shri Murty further relies on para 10 of the Consolidation Commissioner's order where Commissioner held that petitioners could not prove that 2 decimals did not belong to Abhimanyu. He also held that the Bhubaneswar Sub-Registration Office has jurisdiction. 20. (C)/17/76/86602/R dated 9-11-1976. 19. Shri Murty further relies on para 10 of the Consolidation Commissioner's order where Commissioner held that petitioners could not prove that 2 decimals did not belong to Abhimanyu. He also held that the Bhubaneswar Sub-Registration Office has jurisdiction. 20. Shri Murty further relies on AIR 1952 Nagpur 145 (F. B.) wherein it is held that sale deed does not become invalid even if two decimals of land are not proved to be owned by Abhimanyu unless it is established there was attempt to defraud the registration office by doing this. He relies on AIR 1931 Madras 45. 21. He further says that cancellation of sale deed was unilateral. Therefore it is not binding. 22. Shri Murty further argues that Consolidation Courts cannot set aside documents. Fraud etc. in these circumstances is to be proved in Civil Courts. Only if document is void, Consolidation authorities can take note of it and act on it. It is for Civil Court only to declare voidable document. 23. Shri J. B. Patnaik argues in reply that O. Ps. 1 and 4 have not produced any document to prove that a decimal of land actually exists. He concedes that voidable sale deeds can be declared void only by Civil Court. He points out that Section 38 confers power on the Board on the same line as in Article 227 of the Constitution and both include judicial and administrative power. He relies on AIR 1957 Allahabad 414 and AIR 1981 Allahabad 441. 24. Sub-Registrar's jurisdiction was changed on 9-11-1976, Shri Murty further argues that there was no fraud in this case. Vendor may have defrauded S. R. if there is collusion between parties. This collusion is not proved. First sale deed is valid unless and until it is set aside by the Civil Court. He relies on 51(1981) C. L. T. 61 which says that it is not for the Consolidation Court to decide whether a sale deed is valid or not. 25. I agree with Shri J. B Patnaik that Board of Revenue has power under Section 38 under the Consolidation Act to take up revision against the orders of Consolidation Commissioner. 26. The question to be decided is whether the first sale deep in favour of Manoranjan Das is void or not. 25. I agree with Shri J. B Patnaik that Board of Revenue has power under Section 38 under the Consolidation Act to take up revision against the orders of Consolidation Commissioner. 26. The question to be decided is whether the first sale deep in favour of Manoranjan Das is void or not. It is an accepted preposition that it is not for the Consolidation Court to declare voidable deeds as void. 27. The petitioner 's argument is that this registration in a wrong Sub-Registrar's Office is void because 2 decimals of land mentioned in one village which is in Bhubaneswar Sub-Registrar's jurisdiction does not actually exist. O. P's argument is that even if 2 decimals of land does not belong to Abhimanyu at best the purchaser will loose their right over this 2 decimals of land. 28. I find that it is not a fact that 2 decimals of land exist in the plot mentioned. What is established from R. O. R. is that there is no such plot in this village. If there was a plot, I would agree with the O. Ps. that even if he is not the owner of the plot, registration may only result in forefeiting the title to that plot by the O. Ps Inclusion of spurious plot in the sale deed is different preposition. I do not know what advantage has been derived by the parties by registering this deed in Bhubaneswar or in Jatni S. R. Office. 29. In the case of Harendra Lal Ray Choudhury v. Hari Dasi Devi, ((1914)41 Cal 972 : 28 I. C. 637-4 : I. A. 110 (Privy Council)) Lord Moulton observed as follows : " Their Lordships hold that this parcel in fact a fictitious entry and represents no property that the mortgagor passed or intended to mortgage or that the mortgagees intended to form part of his security. Such an entry intentionally made use of by the parties for the purpose of obtaining registration in a district where no part of the property actually charged and intended to be charged in fact exist is a fraud on the Registration Law and no registration obtained by means thereof is valid." This view has not been changed by any subsequent decision of the Supreme Court. 30. Shri Murty, Advocate has quoted a number of decisions of Allahabad, Patna, Nagpur and Madras High Courts. 30. Shri Murty, Advocate has quoted a number of decisions of Allahabad, Patna, Nagpur and Madras High Courts. In all these cases the property actually existed, but the ownership could not be established by the transferor. These decisions quoted by Shri Murty do not a apply in the present case, because in the present case 2 decimals of land mentioned in Bhubaneswar S. R. Office does not exist. 31. But by invoking jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar S. R. Office by adding a spurious plot, the O. Ps. have definitely committed a serious mistake and come under the mischief. They cannot escape the consequence thereof. The deed has to be treated as void No title passes to Manoranjan and thereafter to O. Ps. 1 & 4. 32. I agree with Shri Murty that delivery of possession is not relevant because the consideration is Rs. 100/-. Documents produced by Shri J. B. Patnaik are enough to say that Abhimanyu Misra does not own 2 decimals of land in village Basuaghai and Bhubaneswar S. R. Office has no jurisdiction to this. To this extent Consolidation Commissioner's finding is wrong. I also agree with both lawyer that unilateral revocation of sale has no value. 33. As a result I set aside the Consolidation Commissioner's order and up-hold the order of the Deputy Director. 34. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed