ORDER R. M. Sahai, J. - By these two petitions directed against order of Board of Revenue it is claimed that Board committed manifest error of law in cancelling the Bhumidhari sanad in favour of petitioner in proceedings initiated u/s 137-A of U. P. Z. A. Act 1 of 1951 by State of U. P. 2. It has been found and is not disputed that land in dispute lay in Urban area in respect of which proceedings demarcating it as agricultural area had not taken place. On this finding it is apparent that petitioner could not become tenure holder and grant of Bhumidhari Sanad in his favour was erroneous. But what is strenuously urged is that Board exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with finding of fact recorded by Additional Commissioner. Unfortunately for petitioner even the Additional Commissioner while deciding appeal in favour of petitioner held that land in dispute was part of a bungalow. He however accepted the claim of petitioner because the land, 'was not fenced with barbed wire' and, 'cultivation had taken place on it', with this finding the petitioner becomes out of Court, because proviso to S. 1 of U. P.Urban Area Act exclude building and land appurtenant to such building from agricultural area. 3. Reliance has been placed on the finding, 'In any case, in the background of so much criminal litigation revenue entries, and such clear use of the land in question for agricultural purposes, the defendant appellant applying for and securing a Sanad bhumidhari after due process of law could neither be contended as fraudulent nor based on false suggestions, nor the result of any concealment, and the finding of learned trial court to contrary is perverse, and it is urged that the Board Committed an error of law in decreeing the suit without reversing these findings and concluded that Sanad was obtained fraudulently without any plea, issue or evidence. How could this argument be advanced is not easy to appreciate. Admittedly Raja Mahandra Pratap and Raja Amar Pratap were owners of Bungalow No. 85 Rajapur Road Dehra Dun which they sold to State Government on 25-3-65. It has been seen above that even the Additional Commissioner on local inspection found the land in dispute to be appurtenant to bungalow. Use of such land for agricultural purposes could not render it agricultural area under the Act. It has been seen above that even the Additional Commissioner on local inspection found the land in dispute to be appurtenant to bungalow. Use of such land for agricultural purposes could not render it agricultural area under the Act. Entry of petitioner's name in revenue records based obviously on Bhumidhari Sanad could not change the nature of land and take it out of Proviso to S. 1 of Urban Areas Act. Possession of opposite party since 1959 is clear from own admission of petitioner in application for restoration of possession before Criminal Court moved in 1963. Despite an order u/s 145, Cr. P. C. being in favour of petitioner in 1958 he could not dare file suit either in civil and revenue Court when he was dispossessed in 1959. 4. Even the argument that finding of fraud and concealment has been recorded without any evidence has to be rejected as devoid of any merit. So long the land was such of which a person could not be Bhumidhar the application for grant of Sanad was by concealment of true facts and any declaration granted on it could not be characterised anything but fraudulent and it cannot be sustained in a court of law. It was a fraud practised on Court. 5. It was then urged that opposite party never raised the question that the land in dispute was not demarcated as agricultural area. This does not appear to be correct as even in trial Court this issue was there. Even assuming it to be correct it is the petitioner who has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. No writ can be issued in his favour unless he is able to make out a case and demonstrate that order passed by Board of Revenue is manifestly erroneous. In view of the findings recorded by Board of Revenue and in absence of any material that the land was demarcated as agricultural area the writ cannot be issued only because the point was not taken. 6. In the result both petitions fail and are dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.