The facts giving rise to this writ petition lies in a narrow campus. A resolution was passed by the Land Management Committee village Kaseru, Tehsil Gabhana, District Aligarh on 27.2.1993 proposing to allot and lease out the land in dispute as Bhumidhari with non-transferable rights in favour of the petitioners. The said resolution was approved by the competent authority vide order dated 18.4.1993 and the names of petitioners were recorded in revenue records. A complaint was made after about 15 years on 11.2.2008 that the aforesaid allotment is irregular and as such is liable to be cancelled. On the said complaint, Case No.57 under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was registered. Petitioners submitted an application/ objection dated 18.8.2008 alleging that complaint is patently barred by time and cannot be entertained. However, ignoring the application/objection of the petitioners dated 18.8.2008 notice dated 16.7.2009 was issued to them to show cause why the allotment made in their favour be not cancelled. Petitioners preferred a revision against the order of issuance of the said notice before the Board of Revenue and the same was decided on 1.9.2009 with the observation that the question of limitation as raised vide application dated 18.8.2008 be decided in accordance with law before proceeding on merits. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was considered vide order dated 16.11.2009 and the Collector without actually deciding the same directed for suo motu action for cancellation of the allotment/lease of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction a revision was preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 24.12.2009. The order of the Collector dated 16.11.2009 for initiating suo motu action for cancellation of the allotment/lease of the petitioners and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.12.2009 dismissing the revision have been assailed in this writ petition. I have heard Sri S.N.Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Sri D.D.Chauhan who has appeared for respondent no.3 and with their consent proceed to decide the writ petition on merits at this stage itself. The only submission of Sri Pandey is that the Collector even in exercise of suo motu powers cannot initiate proceedings for cancellation of allotment/lease after expiry of period of limitation prescribed for issuing notice under Section 198(6) of the Act. The only submission of Sri Pandey is that the Collector even in exercise of suo motu powers cannot initiate proceedings for cancellation of allotment/lease after expiry of period of limitation prescribed for issuing notice under Section 198(6) of the Act. According to the learned Standing Counsel the limitation provided under Section 198(6) of the Act is applicable only where proceedings for cancellation have been initiated on the application of the person aggrieved and the same would not be applicable where Collector proceeds to take suo motu action for the cancellation of allotment. In order to consider the above submission, it would be appropriate to first have a look on the relevant provisions of Section 198 of the Act, which are reproduced herein below: "198. Order of preference in admitting persons to land under Sections 195 and 197. (1) ............. (2) ............ (3) ............ (4) The Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land inquire in the manner prescribed into such allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is irregular, he may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any. (4-A) ............ (5) No order for cancellation of an allotment or lease shall be made under Sub-section (4), unless a notice to show cause is served on the person in whose favour the allotment or lease was made or on his legal representatives: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in proceedings for the cancellation of any allotment or lease where such proceedings were pending before the Collector or any other court or authority on August 18, 1980. (6) Every notice to show cause mentioned in Sub-section (5) may be issued: (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before November 10, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the said date), before the expiry of a period of seven years from the said date; and (b) in the case of an allotment of land made on or after the said date before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such allotment or lease or up to November 10, 1987, whichever be later. (7) .............. (8) .............. (9) ............. (7) .............. (8) .............. (9) ............. " The aforesaid Act is a social piece of legislation which not only abolishes the zamindari system and brings the tiller of soil and state in direct contact but also envisages to provide land to the landless agricultural labourers and to protect the possession of the landless persons of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Sections 195 and 197 of the Act accordingly provides for admission of persons as enumerated under Section 198 (1) of the Act as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or Asami over Gaon Sabha land with the approval of the competent authority and the procedure for such admission has been provided under the Rules framed under the Act. The Collector is empowered under Section 198(4) of the Act of his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved to cancel the allotment of the Gaon Sabha land made in favour of any person as well as the lease, if any, if he is satisfied that the allotment made is irregular. The power of cancellation of allotment of land so made cannot obviously be exercised in violation of the principles of natural justice and it is imperative to provide an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned i.e. the allottee of the land before passing an order of cancellation. It is with this view that section 198(5) of the Act specifically provides for issuing/sending a show cause notice upon the person concerned before passing an order of cancellation of allotment or lease. The time in which the notice for cancellation of allotment of land/lease can be issued by the authority concerned is provided in Section 198(6) of the Act which lays down that in cases where allotment is made before 10th November, 1980 notice may be issued within a period of seven years of said date and in cases where allotment is made on or after 10th November, 1980 before the expiry of five years from such allotment or up to 10th November, 1987 whichever be later. In short, the limitation for issuing a show cause notice is five years from the allotment where it is made on or after 10th November, 1980. The provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (6) of Section 198 of the Act are to be construed in conjunction with one another and cannot be read in-isolation. In short, the limitation for issuing a show cause notice is five years from the allotment where it is made on or after 10th November, 1980. The provisions of sub-section (4), (5) and (6) of Section 198 of the Act are to be construed in conjunction with one another and cannot be read in-isolation. The aforesaid provisions are unambiguous and the language used therein is plain and simple which makes no distinction between proceedings for cancellation of allotment initiated suo motu or on the application of a person aggrieved. Therefore, they have to be construed in the ordinary sense and in no other way. Sub-Section (4) of Section 198 of the Act provides for cancellation of allotment/lease by the Collector on his own motion as well as on the application of the person aggrieved. In both the cases, allotment/lease can not be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to the allottee or the person concerned, as otherwise the action of cancellation would be termed arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Sub-section (6) of Section 198 of the Act follows Section 198(4) of the Act which as such covers both the types of proceedings for cancellation viz. suo motu as well as on application of person aggrieved. Accordingly, in my opinion, the inevitable conclusion is that the time frame prescribed for issuing notice before cancelling the allotment/lease of a land provided under sub-section (6) of Section 198 of the Act is applicable to both suo motu proceedings as well as proceedings on the application of the person aggrieved. In examining the above point, one cannot lose sight of Rule 338 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act which provides that the suits, applications and other proceedings under the Act shall be instituted within the time specified in Appendix III to the aforesaid Rules. It reads as under:- "338. The suit applications and other proceedings specified in Appendix III shall be instituted within the time specified therein for them, respectively." Entry 24 of Appendix III prescribes a period of six months for moving an application raising objection against any irregular allotment of land and three years for suo motu action by the Collector for setting aside the allotment of land. Therefore, the limitation for initiation of proceedings for cancellation of allotment by the Collector on suo motu action is three years whereas notice for such purpose can be issued within 5 years as provided under Section 198(6) of the Act. Thus, the legislator clearly intend to provide limitation even for suo motu action and the submission that the limitation has no application for initiation of suo motu action for cancellation of allotment of land/lease is baseless and is to be rejected. It may be remembered that if anything has to be done by an authority it has to be done in the manner prescribed in the Statute and in no another manner. Therefore, as the Act itself provides for a period of three years for initiation suo motu proceedings for cancellation of allotment/lease and a period of 5 years for issuance of notice for the purpose it leaves the authority concerned with no scope to act beyond the time frame so provided. Moreover, allowing the Collector to initiate suo motu proceedings for cancellation of allotment/lease at any time would mean that the allotment would never be final and there would always be danger of its cancellation. This perhaps could never be the intention of the legislator. The limitation of three years as contained in Appendix III of the Rules and five years provided under Section 198(6) of the Act is a well thought of as the aforesaid period of time is sufficient enough either for the person aggrieved to make a complaint against the irregular allotment or for the authorities to examine and verify the record and to take action for cancellation suo motu, if necessary. The last limb of the argument of Standing Counsel is that it is a case of fraudulent allotment of land and therefore, irrespective of limitation provided, the Collector is well within its jurisdiction to draw proceedings for cancellation of such allotment even if the time prescribed has expired. It is well known that fraud vitiates every solemn act and an act of fraud is always to be viewed seriously. The observation of Lord Justice Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley (1956) 1 All E.R. 341 which is quoted below works as a lighthouse even today for those dispensing justice. "No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. The observation of Lord Justice Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs. Beasley (1956) 1 All E.R. 341 which is quoted below works as a lighthouse even today for those dispensing justice. "No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." In view of the above, there is no room to doubt that an order of allotment of land, if obtained by collusion or fraud cannot be allowed to stand and the court would not intervene in such matters so as to permit squandering of the property of the State which vests in the Gaon Sabha. Protection of the State property from such fraud by initiation of action for cancellation of allotment/lease would however, be independent of the power of cancellation of such allotment envisaged under Section 198(4) of the Act for the reason that Section 198(4) comes into play in the limited sphere where the allotment is found to be irregular and not otherwise. Accordingly, in my considered opinion cancellation of allotment/lease on account of fraud is altogether an separate exercise which can be undertaken by the authorities concerned irrespective of Section 198(4) of the Act. However, proceedings for cancellation of allotment of land/lease on the ground of fraud has to be exercised with great care & caution and not blindly or on unilateral version. It is only when the concerned authority on the basis of relevant material has a reason to believe that the allotment is based upon fraud it may proceed in the matter. In so determining the stand, a distinction has to be made between fraud played by the beneficiary or the fraud committed by the officers or the authorities. Where the authority is of the opinion that the allottee is responsible for the alleged fraud it can initiate proceedings for cancellation of the allotment/lease and after giving opportunity of hearing to him may cancel the same. In the event the authority feels otherwise and the involvement of the allottee is not found and the needle of suspension is upon some employee/officer action it must take appropriate action first against such employee/officer and simultaneously if considered proper for cancellation of allotment/lease. In the event the authority feels otherwise and the involvement of the allottee is not found and the needle of suspension is upon some employee/officer action it must take appropriate action first against such employee/officer and simultaneously if considered proper for cancellation of allotment/lease. In view of above, it is held that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 198(6) of the Act for issuance of notice before cancellation of the allotment of the land/lease is applicable even to suo motu proceedings. However, the Collector is not forbidden to initiate proceedings for cancellation even after the expiry of limitation prescribed, provided he has reason to believe that the allotment is likely to vitiate on account of fraud but in exercise of such power has to act with great circumspection as observed above and not in a routine or a causal manner. In the facts of present case and circumstances that the Collector has expressed satisfaction with regard to fraud, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly with liberty to the collector to proceed in the matter, if considered proper, in accordance with law keeping in mind the directions/observations made above. ………….