JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—All these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These petitions arise out of proceeding under Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. There are as many as fifty petitioners in Writ Petition No. 16678 of 2006 and the said writ petition is reported to be barred by laches of eight years and ninety two days. In this petition, the petitioners have sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated 8.1.1988, 6.1.1997 and 29th of September, 1997 passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 1 respectively. 3. The Writ Petition No. 41847 of 1997 has been preferred by 37 persons wherein orders dated 29th of September, 1997, 6th of January, 1997 and 8th of January, 1988 has been sought to be quashed. 4. In the Writ Petition No. 50632 of 2000 there are five petitioners seeking Quashing of the orders dated 29th of September, 1997, 6th of January, 1997 and 8th of January, 1988. 5. The background facts may be noticed in brief. The proceedings giving rise to the present writ petitions were initiated against the petitioners under Section 198 (4) of the Act for cancellation of Patta/lease granted to them on the ground that these Pattas were allotted in violation of the prescribed procedure. The proceedings were initiated on the application filed by one Soni and four other persons. It was stated by them that the Land Management Committee by its resolution dated 5th of May, 1984 resolved to grant Pattas to such persons who were not even resident of village Lalpur Raiyatpur. The Pradhan of the village and the members of the Land Management Committee have executed the leases in favour of fictious persons and thus caused loss to the Gaon Sabha. Most of such allottees are not eligible for grant of any Patta. The persons to whom the Pattas have been granted possessed land even more than thirty bighas. Gross irregularity was committed while granting the Patta as no Munadi etc. was done. 6. In nutshell, allegations of fraud, collusion and malpractice of very serious nature against the Pradhan and members of Land Management Committee were set out therein. The persons to whom the Pattas have been granted possessed land even more than thirty bighas. Gross irregularity was committed while granting the Patta as no Munadi etc. was done. 6. In nutshell, allegations of fraud, collusion and malpractice of very serious nature against the Pradhan and members of Land Management Committee were set out therein. It was further stated that the Chairman of Management Committee and other members of the Committee got the leases in the names of their wives, relatives and near and dear ones. On these allegations the allotment of lease which was approved by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 6th of August, 1984 was challenged through the application dated 11th of October, 1984 i.e. shortly after the allotment. Notices were issued to the allottees and their statements were recorded. 7. The Additional Collector (Admn.) by the order dated 8.1.1988 found that Rule 173 of the Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules was breached and gross irregularity was committed in granting Pattas. Consequently, it cancelled the leases. The matter was carried in revisions before the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra who by the order dated 28th of February, 1994 recommended in favour of the petitioners to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 6th of January, 1997 disagreed with the recommendations made by the Additional Commissioner on the finding that the Rule 173 was breached, the allotments are null and void and, consequently, it upheld the order of the trial authority. 8. From the record of the writ petition Nos. 16678 of 2006 and 50632 of 2000, it appears that the petitioners filed a review application to review and recall the order dated 6.1.1997. The review application was dismissed on 29th of September, 1997. The Writ Petition No. 50632 of 2000 was presented before the Stamp Reporter on 11th of October, 2000 and was reported to be in time up to 28th of December, 1997. In other words, it was barred by laches of around three years. The Writ Petition No. 16678 of 2006 was presented before this Court on 22nd of March, 2006. The Stamp Reporter has reported that the petition was in time up to 28th of December, 1997 and was barred by laches of eight years and ninety two days. 9. Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits two points for consideration before this Court. The Stamp Reporter has reported that the petition was in time up to 28th of December, 1997 and was barred by laches of eight years and ninety two days. 9. Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits two points for consideration before this Court. Firstly, no notice of hearing as contemplated under the Act was given to the petitioners by the trial authority and the allottees were not properly described in the array of the parties. Secondly, the Land Management Committee was not impleaded in the proceedings as one of the parties. It was also submitted that there is no material to show that the applicants at whose instance the machinery was set in motion are ‘aggrieved persons’ within the meaning of Section 198 (4) of the Act. 10. In reply, Sri B.R. Verma, Advocate, submits that it is a case of total fraud on the part of the allottees, Pradhan and members of the Land Management Committee. The Pattas were granted to the petitioners in utter disregard of statutory provisions. The allottees were put to notice and their statements were recorded by the trial authority and submission to the contrary is incorrect. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners; the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it is nothing but a case of total fraud. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned brief holder on behalf of the State of U.P., submits that it is a case where the petitioners obtained the leases in question in total violation of statutory provisions. None of them deserve any sympathy of the Court. The petitioners by adopting dilatory tactics succeeded to prolong this simple litigation by more than two decades. 11. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Taking the first point first that notice as required under Section 198 (5) of the Act was not given, may be considered. The contention is that sub-section (5) of Section 198 mandatorily requires service of a show-cause notice on the person in whose favour allotment or lease was made before cancellation of allotment or lease. Elaborating the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the order of the revisional court in this regard. The Court was taken through the said order repeatedly. Elaborating the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance upon the order of the revisional court in this regard. The Court was taken through the said order repeatedly. It was submitted that the Additional Commissioner on examination of the file reached to the conclusion that no show-cause notice was issued to the allottees before cancellation vide para 8 thereof. On a careful consideration of the matter, it is not possible to agree with the aforesaid submission. Sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act provides for service of a show-cause notice before cancellation, on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made. The said provision contains well known doctrine of natural justice that no person shall be condemned unheard. There is neither any pleading nor proof that the allottees were either not heard or not served by the trial authority before passing of the cancellation orders. It was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, that the allottees were permitted to lead the evidence and their statements were recorded. Attention of the Court was invited towards the order of the trial authority dated 8th of January, 1988. It is mentioned therein that show-cause notices were issued to the allottees and all of them had appeared and got their statements recorded and only one point was raised on their behalf that due procedure as prescribed for allotment or lease was followed. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any reply with regard to the aforesaid statement as contained in the order of trial authority. There appears no plea, at least, none was shown during the course of argument that statement of fact as contained in the order of trial authority referred to above in any manner is incorrect. Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned brief holder invited the attention of the Court towards copy of the order sheet filed as Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition No. 59632 of 2000. Its bare perusal would show that Ram Lal and Jag Ram, the two allottees, had appeared on 19th of September, 1986 and notices were directed to be issued fixing 9th October, 1986 to other allottees. There is, thus, no reason to doubt about the service of notices on the allottees/petitioners. Its bare perusal would show that Ram Lal and Jag Ram, the two allottees, had appeared on 19th of September, 1986 and notices were directed to be issued fixing 9th October, 1986 to other allottees. There is, thus, no reason to doubt about the service of notices on the allottees/petitioners. Had notices were not served on them, they could have filed an application for recall of the ex parte order before the trial authority, a course which is very natural in such matters. None of the petitioners could dare to take the recourse to any such procedure. Straight way two revisions were filed which came for consideration before the Additional Commissioner. Even, the Additional Commissioner, on whose order strong reliance was placed, has noticed in the order that notices were issued to the allottees. However, according to him, these notices were short of legal requirement. As under the notices, the allottees were directed to appear on a particular date. He categorised the notices as notice of giving information or letter of invitation. Evidently, therefore, the notices were issued to the allottees/petitioners who appeared before the trial authority without raising any objection with regard to its invalidity or vagueness etc.. This being so, the argument of the petitioners that there is non-compliance of sub-section (5) of Section 198 of the Act falls down. The other aspect of the plea is that petitioners have not taken care to place a copy of the said notices before this Court to arrive at a conclusion that notice issued to them was not a notice as required under sub-section (5) of Section 198. Taking into consideration the aim and object of the notice as contemplated under sub-section (5) together with the fact that the petitioners did, admittedly, participate in the proceeding before the trial authority and no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to them even if there was some irregularity in the notice, the argument of the petitioner has got no substance. It may be in the nature of a technical objection but without any substance. 13. A feeble attempt was made that the addresses of allottees have not been mentioned in the array of the parties. No such objection appears to have been taken by the petitioners before the authorities below. The petitioners were made fully aware of the cancellation proceedings and they took active part by getting their evidence recorded. 13. A feeble attempt was made that the addresses of allottees have not been mentioned in the array of the parties. No such objection appears to have been taken by the petitioners before the authorities below. The petitioners were made fully aware of the cancellation proceedings and they took active part by getting their evidence recorded. Even if their addresses were not mentioned in the complaint filed by the contesting private respondents, it is inconsequential, having caused no prejudice to the petitioners. Technically, the addresses might not have been mentioned in the complaint but it is mentioned therein that all the allottees to whom the land was allotted in pursuance of the resolution dated 5th of May, 1984 approved on 6th of August, 1984 were parties to the proceedings. 14. Now, I take up the second point. A reference was made to Rule 178 A(2) of the Rules framed under the Act in support of the plea that the Land Management Committee is a necessary party and an opportunity of hearing before passing of the final orders is required to be given to it alongwith the allottees of the land in dispute. The Land Management Committee was a party being opposite party No. 1 as is evident from the application filed by the contesting respondents for cancellation of leases granted to the petitioners. The said provision has been made for benefit of the Land Management Committee. No grievance has been raised by the Land Management Committee to the effect that opportunity of hearing was not afforded to it before cancellation. It is not understandable as to how the petitioners can raise any such grievance on behalf of the Land Management Committee when the Land Management Committee is not coming forward. The said argument is wholly untenable and is therefore, rejected. 15. Lastly, it was urged that an application for cancellation of lease or allotment can be filed only by a person aggrieved by an allotment of a land, as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 198. The complainants, according to the petitioners, were not aggrieved persons and therefore they could not file the said application. No such argument appears to have been advanced before the Courts below by the petitioners. The argument has been sought to be raised for the first time before this Court. The complainants, according to the petitioners, were not aggrieved persons and therefore they could not file the said application. No such argument appears to have been advanced before the Courts below by the petitioners. The argument has been sought to be raised for the first time before this Court. It is difficult to find any such ground in the Writ Petition No. 16678 of 2006 filed by Smt. Chandrawati and others through Sri B.B. Paul, advocate, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The said writ petition contains as many as ten grounds, there is no such ground in this regard. Nor it is possible to decipher the said plea from the body of the writ petition. The said argument is not required to be considered even. Even otherwise also, I do not find any merit therein. The petition for cancellation was filed by the contesting private respondents on very serious allegations. A bare perusal of the said application would show that the allotments were made in violation of law. The Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been enacted with a purpose and object to abolish the Zamindari system and settle the land with the tillers of soil. The Act has also taken care to provide land to landless labourers and other weaker member of society to enable them to earn their livelihood and lead a decent and respectable life. With these loud objects Section 195 for settlement of vacant land, the land vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 and the land which comes in possession of Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provision of this Act, has been made. The idea and purpose is to provide land to needy persons for their upliftment. Obviously, the said provision has not been made for greedy persons or persons of means or persons belonging to effluent class. A plain and simple reading of the application filed by the contesting private respondents gives a picture that the allotments in question were made for wrongful personal gains and not for the uplift-ment of poor and needy persons of the society. It is a case of greedy persons and not of needy persons. There is no averment in any of these three petitions disputing the allegations, as contained in the complaint, that the land was allotted to needy persons, after due notice etc. It is a case of greedy persons and not of needy persons. There is no averment in any of these three petitions disputing the allegations, as contained in the complaint, that the land was allotted to needy persons, after due notice etc. as required by law to eligible persons. Even the persons having more than thirty bighas of land have been given allotment by the Land Management Committee in collusion with the Gram Pradhan to benefit and oblige their relatives, friends, near and dear ones. The allottees are not residents of the village in question and relatives of the members of the Land Management Committee have been benefited by such allotments. A detailed procedure for allotment of land has been prescribed by Section 198 of the Act. It provides various categorise including preferential categories to whom the allotments should be made in order of preference. The allottees are not residents of the village in question and relatives of the members of the Land Management Committee have been benefited by such allotments. A detailed procedure for allotment of land has been prescribed by Section 198 of the Act. It provides various categorise including preferential categories to whom the allotments should be made in order of preference. For the sake of convenience sub-section (1) of Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is reproduced below : Section 198—”In the admission of persons to land as [Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights] or asami under Section 195 or Section 197 (hereinafter in this section transferred to as allotment of land) the Land Management Committee shall subject to any order made by a Court under Section 178 observe the following order of preference : ¹[(a) landless widow, sons unmarried daughters or parents residing in the circle of a person who has lost life by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (b) a person residing in the circle, who has become wholly disabled by enemy action while in active service in the Armed Forces of the Union; (c) a landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle and belonging to a ²[Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, other backward class or a person of general category living below poverty line]; (d) any other landless agricultural labourer residing in the circle; (e) a Bhumidhar, 3[***] or asami residing in the circle and holding land less than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres); (f) landless person residing in the circle who is retired, released or discharged from service other than service as an officer in the Armed Forces of the Union; (g) a landless freedom fighter residing in the circle who has not been granted political pension; (h) any other landless agricultural labourer belonging to a 2[Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, other backward class or a person of general category living below poverty line] not residing in the circle but residing in the Nyaya Panchayat Circle referred to in Section 42 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947]. 16. 16. Rule 173 of the Rules provides procedure for admission to land by providing that the Land Management Committee when it intends to admit any person to land shall announce by beat of drums in the circle of Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the number of plots, their areas and the date on which the admission there to has to be made. Strikingly, it has been found by the trial authority which finding has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue that no such Munadi by beat of drums in the circle of the Gaon Sabha was made. A clear-cut seven days notice is required to be given before the date of meeting for admission of land. It has been found as a fact that Munadi was done on 1st of May, 1984 and the resolution was passed within four days on 5th of May, 1984. The requirement of law that there should be at least one week’s notice, has not been adhered to. Further, it has been found that in the document showing the Munadi, the plot numbers intended to be leased out or its area have not been mentioned. In other words, no opportunity was given to the public at large to come to know about the intended allotment and as such the public failed to apply for the allotment. At this juncture, it is interesting to note that this part of the order of the trial authority has not been touched or disturbed by the Additional Commissioner who recommended the petitioners’ case favourably. The Board of Revenue examined this aspect of the case and reached to the conclusion that due procedure was not followed. It is also important to note that no attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to challenge this part of the order of the Board of Revenue. In other words, the fact that the disputed allotments or leases were made in utter violation of Section 198 and Rule 173 of the Rules is even acceptable to the petitioners. The Apex Court in a recent decision of Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. and others, JT. In other words, the fact that the disputed allotments or leases were made in utter violation of Section 198 and Rule 173 of the Rules is even acceptable to the petitioners. The Apex Court in a recent decision of Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. and others, JT. 2010 (6) SC 41, has after consideration of its earlier judgment with regard to the point as to when the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised, has held as follows : “..........When a person approaches a Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. “Equally, the judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice.” Who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure naturaw aequum est neminum cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem”, means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. (vide The Ramjas Foundation and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1993 SC 852 ; K.P. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and others, (1994) 6 SCC 620 and Nooruddin v. (Dr.) K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242 ). 48. Similarly, in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1997 SC 1236 , this Court observed as under : “The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point.....the interest of justice and the public interest coalesce. They are very often one and the same. ..... The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-Ã -vis the private interest while exercising....any of their discretionary powers (Emphasis added). 49. In M/s Tilokchand Motichand and others v. H.B. Munshi and another, AIR 1970 SC 898 ; State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781 ; and Sabia Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1999 SC 2284 , this Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In M/s Tilokchand Motichand and others v. H.B. Munshi and another, AIR 1970 SC 898 ; State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery, AIR 1977 SC 781 ; and Sabia Khan and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1999 SC 2284 , this Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. A litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts.” 50. In Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai and another, AIR 2003 SC 718 ; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 7 SCC 166 ; and Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner (Admn), Bareily Division, Bareily and others, JT 2010 (3) SC 510, this Court held that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it.” 17. This being so, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. In this fact situation, when no notice was given to the public at large and the allotments were under secret cover illegally, it cannot be said that the contesting private respondents are not person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198 (4) of the Act. It is not a case of the petitioners that these persons do not reside in the village in question or in any manner are incompetent for allotment of the land under the aforesaid section. 18. To say least, the present case is a case of fraudulent use and abuse of the power conferred on the Land Management Committee and the Pradhan to allot the land. 19. The Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 , has held that Court should not lend its support to a tax evader, property grabber or a persons who has not approached Court with clean hands. 19. The Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvarya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 , has held that Court should not lend its support to a tax evader, property grabber or a persons who has not approached Court with clean hands. A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. It is equally settled that a fraud vitiates every solemn act. 20. No other point was pressed. I find no merit in the writ petitions. Before saying omega to the case, it is disturbing to note the manner in which the present writ petitions were filed. As already stated above, these petitions have been filed with considerable delay of years altogether but without any sufficient explanation. The petitioners appear to be clever persons and they tried to install the proceedings of their ejectment by filing review application before the Board of Revenue and undaunted with their failure in the review application, Writ Petition No. 50632 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 16678 of 2006 have been preferred with considerable delay only with a view to remain in occupation of the disputed land somehow or the other. 21. The petitioners are required to be dealt with firmly and therefore, it is provided that each petitioner of the aforesaid three writ petitions will be liable to pay cost @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). The Collector, Aligarh shall recover the cost from them if not paid within the period of one month and shall deposit the said amount in the account of public exchequer. 22. In view of the above discussions, all the three writ petitions are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by each petitioner individually within a period of one month and are also required to hand over the possession forthwith. —————