JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. Whether a tenure holder can be entitled co an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plat originally held by him there in view of the provisions of Section 19(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 (Compendiously the Act) is the short question for consideration. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking relief of a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 30.1.1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, allowing the Revision No. 2348/445 filed by the Respondent and dismissing the Revision No. 2351/463 filed by the Petitioner and also quashing partially the order of Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated April 7, 1990 on 4th of September, 1992, this petition was listed for hearing and the Petitioner's learned Counsel Sri Here Krishna Misra, was heard on merits. It was suggested by both learned Counsel that counter, Rejoinder Affidavits have been filed, hence even though petition was not admitted but that may be decided on merits. After hearing the learned Counsel for parties, petition was dismissed on 4th of September, 1992, but before the order could be signed Sri Hare Krishna Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, made a prayer that it may be taken up again and he may be beard again, just with a view to do complete justice, this request was accepted and petition was listed for hearing on 13.10.1992, but no body appeared for Petitioners hence I have no option but to dismiss the petition in default. Today petition was listed for orders and in the ends of justice order dated 13.10.1992 was recalled the petition was restored to its original number. 3. When the petition was listed today. Sri Sankatha Rai appeared for Petitioner and in his usual style of lengthy and painstaking arguments, pressed all relevant points with all clarity at his command. He contended that Petitioners were not responsible far committing forgery in respect of the valuation of Plot No. 259 and Petitioners were not heard, nor any area could have been given to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 near their house, as they did not hold any original holding there Reliance was placed on Jeet Narain vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1983 ALJ 998. 3 and 4 near their house, as they did not hold any original holding there Reliance was placed on Jeet Narain vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1983 ALJ 998. It was also urged that no reasons, were given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order. 4. Sri S.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents, urged that the reasons were given in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. The finding about the forgery at the behest of the Petitioners was finding of facts and that the compromise, if any, before Assistant Settlement Officer. Consolidation, was challenged as is clear from the averments in the memo of Appeal also. it was challenged by the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, hence compromise being challenged by both the parties, there was no sanctity of the compromise As 0.03 area of Plot No. 259/3 was just in front of the house of the Petitioner and on that area Petitioners have got pumping set etc, which was the private source of their irrigation, hence in view of Section 19(1)(f) of the Act the Respondents 3 and 4 were entitled to their chak on the plot where they have private source of irrigation The Deputy Director of Consolidation has correctly allotted an area of 0.01, 1/2 by abolishing Chak Road. The observations in the impugned order indicate that the Petitioners were also heard. There was no justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of allotment of Chak, it was purely a discretionary matter. 5. Having scrutinised the submissions of the learned Counsel for the patties, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. in the fourth paragraph of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, mention has been made that both the parties have been heard Finding of fact have been recorded that forgery was committed in valuation of plot No. 259 by scouring out in the original papers and scouring out certain corresponding area in the proceedings book, as it is clear from the perusal of paragraph 4 of the impugned order. After perusing the documents of C.H. form No. 2A and C.H. Form No. 23, I am satisfied that the finding about the forgery in the relevant papers in respect of plot No. 259 at the behest of the Petitioners was correct. After perusing the documents of C.H. form No. 2A and C.H. Form No. 23, I am satisfied that the finding about the forgery in the relevant papers in respect of plot No. 259 at the behest of the Petitioners was correct. Since forgery was committed at the behest of the Petitioners, consequently, they were not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable jurisdiction. He who seeks equity must do equity. He who seeks equity must come to the court with clean hands. 6. DOLO MALO NON ORITUR ACTIO connotes that no right of action can have its origin in fraud. Another Maxim TURPI CAUSA NON ORITUR ACTIO means an action does not arise from a case cause. NEMO EX PRORIO DOLO CONSEQUITUQR ACTIO NE sic) connotes that no one can obtain a cause of action in his own fam-ft (sic). 7. IN the present petition as the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded a finding that Indra Pal was responsible for having committed forgery in valuation etc. in plot No. 259/3 etc. Having perused the record I am also satisfied that Indra Pal, Petitioner No. 1, was responsible for forgery in relevant papers hence not entitled to any relief. 8. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi and Others, (1991) 2 SCC 716 , it was observed: When the evidence justified the Standing Committee to record the finding that the examinees, parents or guardians were parties to the fabrication it was not open to the High Court under Article 226 to itself evaluate the evidence and to interfere with the finding and to quash the impugned notification. The High Court over stepped its supervisory jurisdiction and trenched into the arena of appreciation of evidence to arrive at its own conclusions on the spacious plea of satisfying conscience of the Court. The Supreme Court under Article 136 has to correct the illegalities committed by High Court when it exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226. While exercising the powers under Article 226 by the High Court, the court does not sit as a court of appeal on the findings of facts recorded by the Standing Committee (final court of evidence), nor High Court has power to evaluate the evidence as an appellate court and to come to its own conclusions. While exercising the powers under Article 226 by the High Court, the court does not sit as a court of appeal on the findings of facts recorded by the Standing Committee (final court of evidence), nor High Court has power to evaluate the evidence as an appellate court and to come to its own conclusions. If the conclusions reached by the Board can be fairly supported by the evidence on record then the High Court has to uphold the decision, though as an appellate court of facts, may be inclined to take a different view. 9. I am accordingly of the opinion that against the findings of fact recorded by Deputy Director of Consolidation in respect of forgery committed by the Petitioners, this Court can not act as an appellate court of fact in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and can re-appreciate the evidence afresh and reach its own conclusions even though as an appellate court it could have done so. 10. A bare perusal of the impugned order indicates that the reasons have been assigned sufficiently. The modified order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in appeal, grievance of both the parties have been heard as it has been mentioned in the impugned order. 11. Jeet Narain vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) was based on particular facts of that case. That case was in respect of the Abadi. In the present case, statement of fact indicates that the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, have some area near the village Abadi Under the circumstances of the case considering the principles of formation of Chak u/s 19 of the Act, impugned order is correct as principle of Rectangular have been followed and grievance of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been taken into account and just for the convenience of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 an area of 0.01, 1/2, was given to them. The entire area in the village has to be reallocated according to the convenience of tenure holders. it can not be said that an area just in front of the house of tenure holder can not be given to him. 12. 3 and 4 an area of 0.01, 1/2, was given to them. The entire area in the village has to be reallocated according to the convenience of tenure holders. it can not be said that an area just in front of the house of tenure holder can not be given to him. 12. Under the circumstances of the case, there is no justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, when the grievance of both the parties have been heard, spot inspection made, finding of fact recorded that forgery in respect of C.H. Form No. 2A and C.H. Form 23 was committed at the behest of the Petitioners. Under these circumstances the petition is devoid of merit, and it is dismissed. The interim stay dated 21.2.1992 is vacated.