JUDGMENT S.K. MISHRA, J. — The petitioner assails the orders passed by the learned Collector, Puri on 22.10.2009 in Misc. Case nos. 44 and 45 of 2007, wherein he declared the sale deeds dated 26.11.2005 and 25.1.2005 as void being violative of Section 34 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmenta¬tion of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity). 2. In W.P.(C) No. 2682 of 2010, the order passed in Misc. Case No. 44 of 2007 is assailed. In an application under Section 35(2) of the Act, opposite party no.1 prayed the Collector, Puri to declare the Sale Deed bearing no.2045 dated 26.11.2005 to be void. He, inter alia, pleaded that Plot No. 444 measuring an area of Ac.1.62 decimals of Consolidation Khata No. 341, Chaka No.76 and Plot No. 404 of Consolidation Khata No. 166, Chaka No. 42 measuring an area of Ac.1.84 decimals were jointly recorded in favour of the opposite party and his brother Pratap Kumar Padhi¬ary in Consolidation Record of Rights. The opposite party further claims that a specific portion of Plot no. 444 measuring Ac.0.81 decimals and Ac.0.61-1/3 decimals of the plot no. 404 was mortgaged in favour of the present peti¬tioner in shape of a Sale Deed. The opposite party had further pleaded that the present petitioner instead of restoring the land after repayment of the mortgaged money attempted to take posses¬sion of the land and requested the petitioner to execute a sale deed in his favour. The present opposite party no.1 filed Civil Suit bearing No. 92 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nimapara for declaration of right, title and confirma¬tion of possession and to declare the sale deed as a mortgage deed. The petitioner before the Collector further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit as the opposite party occupied the suit land by force on the basis of the void deed, the peti¬tioner was constrained to file the petition under Section 35(2) of the At to declare the Sale Deed void and for eviction. 3. The present petitioner appeared in that case and argued that the suit land is not a fragment and he has purchased the land for consideration and is in possession and after purchase, his mutation has been allowed. 4. 3. The present petitioner appeared in that case and argued that the suit land is not a fragment and he has purchased the land for consideration and is in possession and after purchase, his mutation has been allowed. 4. The writ application bearing No. 2681 of 2010, arises out of the order passed by the Collector in Misc. Case No. 45 of 2007. In the said Misc. Case, the present opposite party prayed for declaring the sale measuring an area of Ac.0.70-1/2 decimals out of Ac.1.41 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 755 and Ac.0.07 decimals out of Ac.0.14 decimals out of Consolidation Plot no.755/1579 of Mouza-Patasundarpur, void. Like previous case, the opposite party no.1 has pleaded that the land stood recorded jointly in the name of his brother and himself. The present petitioner also took the plea that the suit land is not a fragment land and he has purchased the suit land for consideration. He is in possession of the land said land and mutated the same. 5. After considering the materials on record, the learned Collector held that the Regd. Sale Deed No. 2045 dated 26.11.2005 and Regd. Sale Deed No. 256 dated 25.01.2005 to be void and they were declared so. He further ordered that the opposite party i.e. the present petitioner should be evicted from the suit land. Such orders are impugned in these writ applications. 6. Section 34 of the Act provides for prevention of frag¬mentation of consolidable land by way of transfer or partition so as to create a fragment. It is apt to note the relevant portion of the Section 34. Under sub-Section (1), no agricultural land in a locality shall be transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment. Sub-Section (2) provides that no fragment shall be transferred except to a land-owner of a contiguous Chaka. But it further provides that a fragment may be mortgaged and transferred in favour of the State Government and other cooperative and financial institutions. Sub-Section (3) provides for application for permission to the Tahasildar for sale of a fragment of a land. Sub-Section (3-a) provides that any order passed by the Tahasildar may be appealed before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sub-Section (4) further provides that the State Government may, on payment of the mortgaged value, purchase a fragment of a consolidable land. Sub-Section (3) provides for application for permission to the Tahasildar for sale of a fragment of a land. Sub-Section (3-a) provides that any order passed by the Tahasildar may be appealed before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Sub-Section (4) further provides that the State Government may, on payment of the mortgaged value, purchase a fragment of a consolidable land. Sub-Section (5) further provides that the restriction imposed under sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall be treat¬ed for such public purpose, as may be specified by notification, in this behalf by the State Government. 7. Section 2(m) defines the expression “fragment”. It reads as follows: “2(m) “fragment” means a compact parcel of agricultural land held by a land-owner by himself or jointly with others comprising an area which is less than- (i) one acre in the district of Cuttack, Puri, Balasore and Ganjam and in the Anandpur subdivision in the district of Keonj¬har, and (ii) Two acres in the other areas of the State;” This being the definition of fragment, as this case relates to the district of Puri, any compact portion of agricultural land, which is less than one acre is considered to be a fragment. 8. In this case, two questions which arise for determina¬tion are; (i) whether the land sold by the petitioner’s vendor creates a fragment of consolidable land and (ii) whether the Deed in question is a mortgaged deed or a sale deed. 9. In order to judge, whether the sales in question have created a fragment or otherwise, it is apt to look into the recitals in the sale deed. The copies of sale deeds have been filed by the contesting opposite parties. In both the Regd. Sale Deeds the conditions of sale have been described which show that the brothers are recorded jointly and have mutually partitioned the same. The seller recites in the sale deed dated 26.11.2005 that out of the Plot No. 444 of Chaka No.76, he transferred an area of Ac.0.81 decimals, which is bounded by North-Pratap Kumar Padhiary, South-Pareswar Swain, East-Maheswar Nayak, West-Panina¬la and purchaser. In the sale deed dated 25.01.2005, similarly a specific area of land, which is bounded by certain description, has been sold. 10. In the sale deed dated 25.01.2005, similarly a specific area of land, which is bounded by certain description, has been sold. 10. In Smt. Binapani Sethi and another v. Sri Bijay Kumar Sahoo and others, 1997 (II) OLR 399, this Court held that the land sold separately and collectively measure less than one acre, which is the minimum area prescribed for the district of Cuttack, which can be sold without permission of the Tahasildar. There¬fore, there had been a clear contravention of Section 34 of the Act. Hence, the Collector was justified in his conclusion that the transactions were void. In Pradip Kumar Mangaraj and another v. Pravat Chandra Ghose and others, 1990 (I) OLR 193, this Court further held that the Tahasildar lacks power to effect partition of a Chaka over which the interest of the parties is joint. 11. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sale is not creating a fragmentation of the consolidable land as the vendor has sold only his share of land without carving it out. In other words, he contends that he has not sold the specific portion of the land, rather his interest thereon. Further, in this case, the sale deed not only specifies the extent of land he sales through the Regd. Sale Deed but also gives the description of the lands sold by indicating the names of the boundary tenants. That makes both the sale, sale of spe¬cific portion of land, which measures less than one acre in each case. These sales do not transfer the undivided interest of the seller. It is also noted that though the total area of both the sales taken together is more than one acre, the sales have been effected on two different dates i.e. on 22.10.2009 and 26.11.2005. Furthermore, the petitioner does not claim that the lands sold are contiguous to form a single piece of land measur¬ing one acre or more. Therefore, the same cannot be taken to be a sale of more than one acre of land and thus, the sales are con¬travening the provision of Section 34 of the Act. 12. The mutation of the interest of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Kakatpur is, therefore, illegal in view of the afore¬said fact that the sale deeds are void because of the prohibition provided under Section 34(1) of the Act. 13. 12. The mutation of the interest of the petitioner by the Tahasildar, Kakatpur is, therefore, illegal in view of the afore¬said fact that the sale deeds are void because of the prohibition provided under Section 34(1) of the Act. 13. In order to decide whether a deed is sale deed or a deed of mortgage, the terms and conditions as laid down in the document has to be taken into consideration. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 excludes oral evidence on the question of the terms and conditions, where a document is in existence. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when the terms of a contract, grant or other dispossession of property etc. have been reduced to a form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible. Thus, the recitals of the terms and conditions in the deeds in question are the admissible and relevant to determine whether a particular transaction is a sale or mortgage. In this case, it is clearly indicated that on receipt of certain consideration money, the seller executes such sale in favour of the present petition¬er, thereby transferring his interest over lands in question and none of his descendants can challenge the same. The terms and conditions laid down in the sale deeds are therefore very clear. It indicates that the transactions were sales and not mortgages. 14. Accordingly, the questions raised in the writ petitions are decided. This Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Collector, Puri and therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.