JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 9-1-1987 dismissing the revision against the order of the Collector, Ghaziabad dated 17-9-1986 declaring the sale deed void executed in favour of the revisionist under Sections 166 and 167 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the disputed plot No. 238 area 0-15-10 was recorded as bhumidhari of Hukum Singh. The revisionist purchased on area of 252 sq. yards through a registered sale deed dated 7-12-1985 out of this date. The Collector draw proceeding for declaring the sale deed void under Section 167 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. The revisionist filed an objection alleging that this land is being used as abadi, hence the sale deed could not be declared void. 4. His objection was rejected and the sale was held to be void. A revision filed against that order was also dismissed, hence this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that even though whole plot No. 238 having an area of 0-15-10 is recorded as bhumidhari of Hukum Singh but only an area of 0-10-10 was being used for agricultural purposes and the remaining part of it was being used as abadi and since the sale deed has been executed in respect of the abadi area, hence such sale deed could not be declared. 7. I find force in the contention so raised before me. A transfer of a consolidated area is hit by the provisions of Section 167 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 only if the land is being used as agricultural land but if any portion of the land is being used as abadi then such portion of the abadi land would not remain land within the meaning of Section 3 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and in that event the sale of a fragment of such portion would not be hit by Section 167 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. In the instant case some portion of plot No. 238 is recorded as abadi in the khasra. In the instant case some portion of plot No. 238 is recorded as abadi in the khasra. Since no other document has been filed by the State there is every reason to presume that the entry of abadi is coming down from the consolidation period and, therefore, in such event a sale of a fragment of the abadi portion would not be hit by the provisions of Section 167 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Both the courts below failed to appreciate the law in the right perspective and, therefore, committed an illegality by declaring the sale deed in this case void. Their orders, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the revision deserved to be allowed. 8. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed. The impugned orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the sale deed executed in favour of the revisionist is held to be valid.