JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is a sequel to an earlier judgment given by me on 14.3.2005 in an earlier writ petition filed by the present petitioner i.e. writ petition No. 14965 of 2005, Ghanshyam Singh v. State of U.P. and another. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The said judgment is also Ghanshyam Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (98) RD 489. 3. The matter relates to Gaon Sabha plot No. 1413 area 0.906 hectares situate in village Attaur Tehsil Sadar District Ghaziabad. In several cases it has been found that as land of Noida, Ghaziabad and adjoining areas has become extremely expensive hence gaon sabha land is being usurped by private persons and tehsil authorities in collusion with each other and the most convenient method is to mis-use rather abuse Section 122-B (4-F) of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. In my judgment dated 14.3.2005 (supra) I quoted from an earlier judgment as follows: “Whenever a new cut off date for conferring benefit of Section122-B (4-F) of the Act is provided, people belonging to scheduled caste start claiming benefit of the said Section by creating evidence of prior possession. In view of this rampant mal-practice it is most essential that whenever benefit of aforesaid sub-section (4-F) is claimed the claimant must show that he is in unauthorized possession over Gaon Sabha land and his name is recorded in the revenue records prior to the cut off date or the proceedings for his ejectment must be pending since before the cut off date. If it is not so then no amount of evidence can be looked into in that regard. In most of the cases like the present ones Pradhans, Lekhpals and other Revenue authorities in collusion with claimants give wrong reports of possession of the claimants prior to the cut off date.” 4. In my earlier judgment I prima facie found that Lekhpal was bent upon to allow the petitioner to usurp the gaon sabha land. At the time of alleged unauthorised occupation of gaon sabha land petitioner was only 14 years of age and his father was employed in Nagar Nigam, Delhi. Tehsildar passed an order which was utterly shocking. In my earlier judgment I prima facie found that Lekhpal was bent upon to allow the petitioner to usurp the gaon sabha land. At the time of alleged unauthorised occupation of gaon sabha land petitioner was only 14 years of age and his father was employed in Nagar Nigam, Delhi. Tehsildar passed an order which was utterly shocking. In his order dated 27.6.2003 he observed that as no documentary evidence had been filed to show that petitioner was not in possession over the land in dispute hence petitioner should be held to be in possession much before 2.5.2002 (which was initially the cut off date under the aforesaid proviso; now it is 13.5.2007). 5. Through my judgment dated 14.3.2005 I had directed the Collector to decide the matter expeditiously. Now the Collector has decided the matter through order dated 21.0.2005 which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has been challenged through this writ petition. 6. The Collector has categorically held that before 1.5.2002 the name of the petitioner was not entered as occupant in any revenue record and no report regarding possession was prepared in accordance with para-89 (or 89-A) of Land Record Manual. Ultimately the Collector, Ghaziabad rejected the application of the petitioner dated 11.4.2005 and passed order of immediate dis-possession of the petitioner and directed for taking action against erring officials i.e. Lekhapal and Revenue Inspector. 7. I do not find least error in the impugned order. Petitioner was trying to usurp the land of Gaon Sabha with active collusion of Tehsil authorities. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following authorities; (1) Manorey @ Manohar v. Board of Revenue (U.P.) and others, JT 2003 (3) SC 538. (2) Ram Adhar v. Tahsildar, Jhansi, 2006 (101) RD 115. (3) Panchu v. Collector, Gorakhpur and another, 2006 (101) RD 562. 9. In all these authorities it has been held that if a person belonging to Scheduled Caste is actually in possession before the cut off date then he is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid sub-section. In none of the authorities it has been held that taking advantage of changed cut off date private persons or tehsil authorities are permitted to usurp the valuable gaon sabha land. 10. In none of the authorities it has been held that taking advantage of changed cut off date private persons or tehsil authorities are permitted to usurp the valuable gaon sabha land. 10. If a person with the connivance of tehsil authorities manufactures the evidence of his possession then he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act. 11. Moreover, for getting the benefit of the aforesaid sub-section it is utmost essential that the claimant must be agricultural labourer. In the instant case there was absolutely no evidence that petitioner was agricultural labourer. On the other hand his father was an employee of Delhi Nagar Nigam. Fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings. If a private person and Tehsil authorities fraudulently contrive a design to usurp gaon sabha land then even subsequent change in the cut off date cannot benefit them. 12. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. —————