JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision under Section 333 of Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order dated 26.9.1986 of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, rejecting the revision No. 94 of 1986 against the order of the Collector Jaunpur dated 16.8.1986 in case No. 49 in a proceeding under Section 167 of the same Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the revisionist was the bhumidhar of the disputed plot no. 54 area 1.32 situated in village Saphipur, Pargana Anguli, Tahsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. The village has already undergone consolidation operations. Smt. Prandei executed a sale deed of 0.66 area of the said plot in favour of Raj Bahadur and others on. 5.3.1984 though the area of the whole plot was less than 3.125 acres. Later, the revisionist namely the vendor filed a civil suit for the cancellation of the said sale deed and by a compromise decree the sale deed was cancelled by the order of the Munsif dated 16.5.1984. One Abdul Rajjak Up-Pradhan of the village gave an application to the Collector Jaunpur informing him about the said transfer and requested that the vendee be ejected and the land be occupied by the Gaon Sabha since the sale deed was void and was hit by Section 168-A of the Z.A. Act. A notice was issued to Smt. Prandei who filed an objection stating that the sale deed had already been cancelled and possession had not been delivered to the vendee, hence there is no question of the delivery of possession to the Gaon Sabha. The learned Collector rejected the objection and ordered the delivery of possession to Gaon Sabha under Section 167 (2) of the Z.A. Act. A revision against that order was also dismissed, hence this second revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the impugned order and the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that no actual delivery of possession was made to the vendee, hence the transaction remained only on paper and was not executed on the spot and that since the sale deed has already been cancelled by a competent court, hence it does not exist at all and there is no question of calling it a void transfer. 5. 5. As against the above argument the learned D.G.C. argued that the factum about the delivery of possession to the vendee is manifest from the deed itself which is on record in which it has been clearly mentioned that possession has been handed over to the vendee from the date of the transfer and that consideration was also paid to the vendor. He, therefore, submitted that both of these ingredients clearly prove that the transaction of sale was complete and, therefore, the latter act of the revisionist by filing a suit in the civil court and by getting the same decreed through a compromise with the vendee is all collusive and afterthought and cannot save the transaction from being declared void. He, therefore contended that the orders passed by both the courts below are perfectly valid and cannot be interfered with. 6. In my opinion the argument of the learned D.G.C. is not without force. Admittedly the area was a consolidated one, hence transfer of a part of the holding could be made either to a co-tenure-holder or to a person having his plot contiguous to the fragment and to none else. Both of these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case. The vendee is absolutely an outsider. He is neither a co-tenant of the vendor nor does he have any land contiguous to the fragment sold to him. Consequently the sale deed was against the provisions of Section 168-A (1) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and was, therefore void under sub-section (II) of the same section. Consequently the provisions of sub-section (3) of the same section would be attracted and by virtue of Section 167 (2) of the Z.A. Act the possession over the land has to be taken over by the Collector. The sale deed being void would extinguish all the rights of the vendor and the vendee and none of them has any right to remain in possession over the land. 7. As regards the obtaining of the decree from the Civil Court by the revisionist I do not think that it is any help to her. It is well settled law that only a voidable document can be got annulled by the Civil Court and a document which is void ab-initio cannot be got cancelled. 7. As regards the obtaining of the decree from the Civil Court by the revisionist I do not think that it is any help to her. It is well settled law that only a voidable document can be got annulled by the Civil Court and a document which is void ab-initio cannot be got cancelled. The decree even if passed by the Civil Court would have no effect on a void document and such document cannot be deemed to have been cancelled by any court. In such circumstances the decree passed by the Civil Court about the cancellation of the sale deed is only superfluous and cannot save the revisionist from bearing the consequences of Section 168-A and Section 167 (2) of the Z.A. & L.R. Act. The orders passed by both the Courts below, are, therefore, perfectly justified and cannot be interfered with. This revision is, therefore, without any force and is accordingly dismissed.