1. Petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing Notices Nos. 22/OQ dated 07.04.2011 and 124/NT dated 18.04.2011 issued to him under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act by Executive Magistrate, 1st Class (Naib Tehsildar), Tan-gmarg, respondent no.4 herein. The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the offer of the petitioner for exchange of his proprietary and in lieu of Kahcharai land, and not to interfere into the peaceful possession of petitioner over the land in question. 2. It appears that the petitioner had approached the respondents with an offer for exchange of his proprietary land with some Kahcharai land which, according to the petitioner, was suitable for constructing his residential house, but before the application could be considered by the respondents, petitioner appears to have encroached upon the said land. Respondents, after noticing the encroachments, issued notices for his eviction, which are impugned in the present writ petition. Petitioner has placed on record of this petition as annexure P2 his application made in March 20,2008 to the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla. In the said application the following prayer has been made: "Now, there is a state land (Kahcharai) near my proprietary land which is quite suitable for my residential house. In this connection, it is requested that my proprietary land may kindly be got exchanged with State land (Kahcharai land) so that I may be in a position to construction the house with (should read 'without') any tension and live peacefully." From a bare perusal of the contents of the aforesaid application made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, it becomes clear that till 2008 he had neither possessed the Kahcharai land in question, nor raised any construction thereon when the said application was made by him. 3. Respondents have resisted the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no right in the Kahcharai land and that the petitioner had illegally encroached upon the said land, and started raising construction thereon. It is averred that the land in question, falling under Khasra No. 563, situate at Drooru Tangmarg, is recorded as Kahcharai land (grazing land). It is submitted that the petitioner was served with notices, which were duly received by him, but even then he did not stop the illegal construction upon the said land. It is averred that the land in question, falling under Khasra No. 563, situate at Drooru Tangmarg, is recorded as Kahcharai land (grazing land). It is submitted that the petitioner was served with notices, which were duly received by him, but even then he did not stop the illegal construction upon the said land. It is contended that due to the cognizance taken by this Court in the writ petition, the respondents could not demolish the illegal construction raised by the petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner herein has no individual or personal right over the Kahcharai Land which is reserved and meant to be used as grazing land by the community as a whole. Therefore, he cannot invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with regard to the said land for his ulterior motives. On the own showing of the petitioner, he has illegally occupied the said piece of Kahcharai land and has raised some structure thereon. Now he wants to offer his proprietary land in exchange of the said piece of land illegally possessed and utilized by him to his own use out of the Kahcharai land. 5. If the petitioner was desirous of entering into any kind of exchange with the Government viz-a-viz the said piece of Kahcharai land, he ought to have waited for the decision of the competent authority on the application made by him before taking illegal possession thereof or building on it. He instead chose to take recourse to a unlawful methodology to hoodwink the competent authorities so as to make out a case to seek protection under clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 133(2) of the Land Revenue Act. Such a course is prohibited by law. An illegal act would not create any right in the petitioner over the piece of Kahcharai land, nor can this Court come to his rescue to protect his illegal act under the garb of the provisions of J&K Land Revenue Act. It would be advantageous to extract hereunder the relevant provision of law contained in Section 133 of the J&K Land Revenue Act: "133(2) (a) when land which has been reserved for grazing ground or any other public purpose or of which the cultivation has been prohibited by a Revenue Officer duly empowered in that behalf has been encroached upon or brought under cultivation; (b)...... (c)..... (c)..... a Revenue Officer empowered in this behalf by the Government of his own motion or on the application of any person interested, may eject the person so encroaching upon or cultivating such land and take possession of such land without paying any compensation for crops or improvements, and may also, by order duly proclaimed, forbid repetition of the encroachment: Provided that where on any land mentioned in clause (a) any structure stands raised, the person encroaching upon the land shall be ejected there from forthwith leaving an area of 10 marlas under and adjacent to the structure in respect of which the owner thereof shall be given a notice in writing affording him an opportunity to -(i) dismantle the structure standing on such land and to remove the material from the site; or (ii) offer suitable equivalent area in exchange from out of his proprietary land or from out of the land which he may acquire or purchase for the purpose, in the same village; within a period of one month from the date of issue of the notice failing which the Revenue officer aforementioned may eject the owner or occupier of the structure and may dismantle or cause to be dismantled the structure and remove or cause to be removed the material from the site and in doing so the Revenue Officer may use such force, as may be necessary. The person so ejected shall be liable under the order of a Revenue officer not below the rank of a Collector or officer in charge of the Settlement or an Assistant Collector of the first class subordinate to him to a fine not less than Rs.500 per day till the contravention on the land mentioned in section 133 is removed in addition to revenue payable on the land for the period of possession reckoned act village revenue rate." The petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the provisions of Section 133 of the Act to perpetuate his illegality. It is reiterated that in his application made to the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner had not made any mention either of his possession over the Kahcharai land or he having raised any construction thereon. As contended by the respondents, petitioner took over the possession of the land only after making the aforesaid application and, thereafter, started raising a structure thereon. As contended by the respondents, petitioner took over the possession of the land only after making the aforesaid application and, thereafter, started raising a structure thereon. The petitioner, therefore, cannot seek the protection contemplated under the aforesaid provision of the law, as it would tantamount to granting premium over illegality committed by him. Secondly, it is always for the competent authorities to assess an offer as envisaged under clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 133(2) of the Land Revenue Act and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with the attending circumstances. 7. Viewed thus, I find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed along with CMPs. Interim direction, if any passed, shall stand vacated. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.