JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Both the aforementioned writ petition involving identical questions of law and facts have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment treating WRIT - C No. - 57 of 2001 as leading case. 2. The petitioner was allotted a patta of the plot No. 469-Ka measuring 90 decimal, 469-Ka measuring .90 decimal and 479-Ka measuring .007 decimal situated in village Malpur Lohrai in the year 1988. An approval was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. The allotment was made in favour of the petitioner under the category of having undergone family planning. An application was moved by respondent No. 4 seeking cancellation of allotment on the ground that the order of allotment has been passed in violation of Section 198-A(1) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (in short as ‘the Act’). 3. On this being brought to the notice of the Additional Commissioner, a report from the concerned agency was obtained. The objections were filed by the petitioner to the said report on 30.12.1996. It also appears that the opportunity was given to the petitioner for leading his evidence but he could not present on the date when the case was fixed. On his failure to appear, the order impugned was passed on 31.3.1998, canceling patta granted in his favour. 4. An application for recalling of the order was filed on the ground that it was an ex parte order. After hearing the parties, a detailed order was passed by the Collector holding that the proceedings were not ex parte. A revision preferred against the aforesaid order also stands dismissed. Under these circumstances, the present petitions have been filed. 5. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that he was not heard before cancellation order was passed by the Collector. The petitioner has been allotted patta under the category of having undergone family planning. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. While scanning section 198-A(1) of the Act, there is no category which provides that those persons who have undergone family planning would be allotted patta. The allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner is ex facie in contravention of the provisions of Section 198-A(1) of the Act. This fact has not been disputed by the petitioner. While scanning section 198-A(1) of the Act, there is no category which provides that those persons who have undergone family planning would be allotted patta. The allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner is ex facie in contravention of the provisions of Section 198-A(1) of the Act. The Collector in his order has held that the allotment has been made in favour of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of Section 198-A(1) of the Act. After having held that the petitioner has been allotted patta in violation of the provisions of Section 198-A(1) of the Act, allotment was cancelled. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an ex parte proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which is in violation of the rules of natural justice. On facts, it transpires that the petitioner had filed his objection and was provided an opportunity by the prescribed authority to lead his evidence. He failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on the date. Consequently, the order was passed canceling his Patta. The other aspect of the matter is whether the petitioner was prejudiced by non-observance of rules of natural justice. It be seen that the petitioner had obtained an allotment of patta in violation of the provisions of section 198 of Act. He claims that allotment of patta was made on the basis that he had undergone family planning which is not a category mentioned in the aforesaid Act for allotment of the patta. The allotment of patta was per-se in violation of provisions of Section 198 of the Act and for all purposes it is non-est in the eyes of law. The aggrieved party cannot take protection of the rules of natural justice in such cases. The order obtained by mis-representation or fraud is void ab-initio and it is always to be treated as non-existent. A person can claim protection of rules of natural justice where he has an existing right which is sought to be taken away. The petitioner admittedly had no existing right which was being taken away without following the rules of natural justice. It is for the protection of vested legal rights, which entitles him a right of hearing but where there exists no right, no hearing is required. 7. The petitioner admittedly had no existing right which was being taken away without following the rules of natural justice. It is for the protection of vested legal rights, which entitles him a right of hearing but where there exists no right, no hearing is required. 7. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order impugned passed by the Courts below. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 8. A prayer is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to approach the Gaon Sabha for allotment of the land. No such direction can be issued by this Court. It is for the petitioner to approach the Gaon Sabha in case he is entitled under the law. ——————