JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P., Sri Brij Kumar Yadav, Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri Rohan Gupta, counsel for respondent-6. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 31.7.2014, allowing the revision of respondent-6 and cancelling the patta of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was a class IV employee in Indian Railways and retired from service on 31.12.1982. Land Management Committee granted patta of plots 539-M (area 0.256 hectare), 541 (area 0.277 hectare), 850 (area 0.082 hectare and 902 (area 0.143 hectare) total area 0.758 hectare of village Bagdaudi Kachhar, Kanpur Nagar, in the year 1984, which was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer on 10.11.1984 and name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue record. The petitioner was granted ‘bhumidhar with transferable right’ over the aforesaid land since 1410 F. 4. Tara Shankar Dixit (respondent-7) filed an application (registered as Case No. 1 of 2010-11) under Section 198(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for cancelling patta of the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner was a Government servant and was not eligible for grant of patta under Section 198 (1) of the Act. The Collector called for a report from Tahsildar, who submitted his report dated 31.7.2010. The Collector by order dated 11.10.2010 held that the petitioner was a retired Government servant and he was in possession of the land allotted to him. Tara Shankar Dixit (respondent-7) was not the resident of village Bagdaudi Kachhar and Pargahi Kachhar, as such he was not an aggrieved person. On these finding the application was dismissed. Tara Shankar Dixit (respondent-7) filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 10/10) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner by order dated 13.1.2011 and this order has become final. 5. Thereafter, Sushil Agrawal (respondent-6) filed another application dated 5.5.2014 before the Collector for cancelling patta of the petitioner on the same ground that the petitioner was a Government servant and was not eligible for grant of patta under Section 198 (1) of the Act. In this application Sushil Agrawal has stated that he was resident of village Bagdaudi Kachhar and was an aggrieved person. In this application Sushil Agrawal has stated that he was resident of village Bagdaudi Kachhar and was an aggrieved person. During pendency of the application, respondent-6 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 36 of 2013-14) against the alleged order of Collector dated 12.5.2014 before Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. On 30.7.2014, office submitted a report that certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.5.2014 was not filed. Sri Jaswant Singh, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., who was going to retire on 31.7.2014, allowed the revision and cancelled the patta of the petitioner, without issuing any notice to him and without summoning the lower Court record. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was retired from service of Indian Railways, from class IV post, on 31.12.1982. The petitioner was landless person and was eligible for allotment of the land. Land Management Committee granted patta of the land in dispute to the petitioner, in the year 1984, which was approved by Sub-Divisional Officer. The name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue record on its basis on 10.11.1984. The petitioner was granted ‘bhumidhar with transferable right’ over the aforesaid land since 1410 F. The petitioner has also raised constructions over part of the land in dispute and also sold some of its area. Section 198 (6) of the Act provides five years limitation for cancellation of patta. Earlier Tara Shankar Dixit (respondent-7) who is helper/guard of Sushil Kumar Gupta (respondent-6) filed an application for cancellation of the patta of the petitioner, which was dismissed by order dated 11.10.2010 and his revision was also dismissed on 13.1.2011. Now respondent-6 himself filed an application dated 5.5.2014 for cancellation of the patta on the same allegations. This application was highly time barred and was liable to be dismissed. However during pendency of the application, respondent-6 filed a revision before Board of Revenue, U.P. In the revision certified copy of the impugned order dated 12.5.2014 was not filed. Office submitted a report in this respect on 30.7.2014. Sri Jaswant Singh, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. was retiring on 31.7.2014. He crossed all the judicial norms for the reasons best known to him and allowed the revision, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without summoning the lower Court record and cancelled the patta of the petitioner. Office submitted a report in this respect on 30.7.2014. Sri Jaswant Singh, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P. was retiring on 31.7.2014. He crossed all the judicial norms for the reasons best known to him and allowed the revision, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without summoning the lower Court record and cancelled the patta of the petitioner. Order dated 31.7.2014 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 7. In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for respondent-6 submitted that the petitioner was a Government servant, employed in Central Government. Under Section 195 of the Act, Land Management Committee is authorised to allot Gaon Sabha land, in order of preference as given under Section 198 (1) of the Act. Under Section 198 (1) (f), only a retired Government servant from service of Armed Forces of Central Government alone are eligible. From this clause, it is apparent that other retired Government servant are not eligible by necessary implication. The petitioner does not fall in any of the categories given under this section. This Court in Ajay Singh v. Board of Revenue, U.P., 1998 (2) AWC 1353 , held that eligibility for allotment of Gaon Sabha land has to be examined keeping in view of the economic condition, social status and other relevant factors. The petitioner committed fraud in as much as in his Service record, his name was recorded as Jai Lal son of Devi while for allotment of the land he impersonated himself as Jiya Lal son of Devi Deen, so that he may be considered as landless person. Patta has been secured by committing fraud as such limitation as provided under Section 198 (6) of the Act will not be applicable as held by this Court in Suresh Giri v. Board of Revenue U.P., 2010(2) ADJ 514 . Fraud vitiates most solemn act as held by Supreme Court in State of Andra Pradesh v. T. Surya Chandra Rao, (2005) 6 SCC 149 and Venture Gobal Engineering v. Satyam Computer Services Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 660 . The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for restoring illegal order. As the petitioner has obtained patta by committing fraud, it has been cancelled by Board of Revenue, U.P. In case order is set aside then fraudulent patta of the petitioner will be restored. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for restoring illegal order. As the petitioner has obtained patta by committing fraud, it has been cancelled by Board of Revenue, U.P. In case order is set aside then fraudulent patta of the petitioner will be restored. He relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhartiya Sewa Samaj Trust and another v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel and others, (2012) 9 SCC 310 , in which it has been held that the Court should not set aside illegal order if its effect is to revive another illegal order since in such eventuality illegality would be perpetuated and it will amount to award a premium to undeserving party. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Fraud is a issue of fact and has to be pleaded and proved. No inference can be drawn in this respect, merely on the basis of pleadings. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to examine the various arguments raised by the parties as the application filed by respondent-6 is still pending before the Collector, where various issues (including that the petitioner had obtained patta by committing fraud) raised by respondent-6 has to be examined. The petitioner alleged that the revision was filed against some imaginary order dated 12.5.2014 before Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad. On 30.7.2014, office reported that certified copy of impugned order dated 12.5.2014 was not filed. Sri Jaswant Singh, Member, Board of Revenue, U.P., who was going to retire on 31.7.2014, ignored the office report and allowed the revision by order dated 31.7.2014, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without summoning the lower Court record and cancelled the patta of the petitioner. Respondent-6 has filed Counter-affidavit in the writ petition but could not state as to which order was challenged in the revision before Board of Revenue, U.P. In paragraph-17 of the Counter-affidavit, it has been stated that as respondent-6 was not informed about the disposal of his application dated 5.5.2014 and 60 days had expired as such he had filed the revision. 9. Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 confers jurisdiction of revision against any order passed by sub-ordinate Courts in the suit or proceeding. Under this Section for deciding the revision, Revisional Court is also required to call for record and examine its legality and propriety. 9. Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 confers jurisdiction of revision against any order passed by sub-ordinate Courts in the suit or proceeding. Under this Section for deciding the revision, Revisional Court is also required to call for record and examine its legality and propriety. Neither any order was passed by the Collector on the application of the petitioner nor Board of Revenue, U.P. summoned the record of the Collector before passing the order. The revision was allowed and patta of the petitioner was cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The course adopted by Board of Revenue, U.P. is not only illegal but also caste shadow on the dignity of the Courts. Such an order cannot be maintained by this Court, drawing an inference that the petitioner had obtained patta by committing fraud. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order of Board of Revenue, U.P. dated 31.7.2014 is quashed. ——————