JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the UP Land Revenue Act and seeks quashing of the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by SDO, Hata, respondent no. 4 and the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur, respondent no. 2. 3. The SDO by his order dated 02.07.2009 found the entry regarding that plot no. 732, area 0.793 hectare in the name of the petitioner, Nav Jeevan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, village Sikatia, to be a fraudulent entry and directed that it be expunged and the land be recorded in the name of Junior High School, as earlier. This order has been affirmed in revision by the respondent no. 2. Hence this writ petition. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in question had been reserved for a Junior High School during the consolidation operations. Since in the village in question and in its vicinity, no educational institution for girls was available, the land was given to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha. Thereafter the petitioner established a Junior High School which is duly recognized and is also an aided institution. 5. Since the institution building had been constructed and the school was running, the revenue inspector by an order passed on 16.07.2000 directed that the name of the petitioner institution be recorded. This order was duly given effect to in the revenue records. 6. Subsequently on a report by the revenue authorities, the SDO by his order dated 02.07.2009 has passed an ex parte order ordering that the name of the petitioner be expunged and the earlier entry of Junior High School be restored. 7. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner institution is performing a public function. It is providing education to girls in the area and that no other similar institution is situated nearby. Placing reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sant Ishawar Singh Memorial Junior High School vs. State of UP reported in (2011) ALJ 485; 2011 (113) RD 269 and Janta Udyog mandal Vidyalaya vs. State of UP reported in (2005) 2 (AWC) 1745 ; 2005(98) RD 527. 8. Placing reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sant Ishawar Singh Memorial Junior High School vs. State of UP reported in (2011) ALJ 485; 2011 (113) RD 269 and Janta Udyog mandal Vidyalaya vs. State of UP reported in (2005) 2 (AWC) 1745 ; 2005(98) RD 527. 8. It has been submitted that the petitioners are willing to offer plot no. 523 situated in the same village in lieu of plot no. 723 whereupon the institution has been in existence since 1985. The alternative submission made on the basis of the case law cited is that plot no. 723 may be settled with the petitioner, on payment of an adequate amount. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner is acting in public interest, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 9. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 10. The first important point that emerges from a perusal of the writ petition is that the petitioner does not claim title of the land in question. The only assertion made is that this land which was reserved for Junior High School during the consolidation was given to the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha. 11. In my considered opinion, this assertion is totally unacceptable. The Gaon Sabha has no right to hand over any plot to a private individual or entity. The Gaon Sabha is mere custodian of the land which belongs to the State. The Gaon Sabha is only empowered to grant a lease which may either an agricultural lease, housing lease or an asami lease which is for a short duration. There is no other way the Gaon Sabha can hand over its property who anyone. 12. Besides, the entry of Junior High School is found to be fraudulent by the courts below and this specific finding is not under challenge in the writ petition. The petitioner having resorted to fraud and forgery, is clearly not entitled to any relief in exercise of the equity jurisdiction under-Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No equity lies in favour of a person, who has resorted to fraud and forgery. For the same reason, any action by a fraudster or forgerer can never be in public interest. 13. No equity lies in favour of a person, who has resorted to fraud and forgery. For the same reason, any action by a fraudster or forgerer can never be in public interest. 13. Even otherwise, no public interest lies in an illegal act or an act which is contrary law. I, therefore, find no merits in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 14. Insofar as the reliance upon the case law cited and the submission on its basis that the plot in question be either exchanged with the plot no. 523 or that the land in question be settled with the petitioner on payment of adequate compensation, has also been made only to be rejected. Although not argued, it has been averred in the writ petition that an application was made by the petitioner seeking the exchange as has been sought before me. This application was rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being writ petition no. 21813 of 2013 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.04.2014. The relevant portion of this order passed by the Division Bench is extracted below: - "By this process, an attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to grab valuable public property which, as noted by the Deputy Collector in his impugned order dated 14 November 2013, is worth several crores of rupees. It is, however, sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is running an aided Government Institution and though the petitioner has no lawful title over the land, the Institution may be allowed to continue. We are of the considered view that such relief cannot be granted, for, if the Court were to accept such a submission it would be destructive of the rule of law. Allowing the submission would mean that a land grabber with absolutely no element of lawful title or lawful authority to occupy public land can perpetuate a devious scheme to first fabricate the land records and thereafter continue in unlawful occupation over public property. This relief cannot be granted, particularly in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order passed by the third respondent does not suffer from any error. No relief of regularization can be granted, much less by way of a writ of mandamus in these proceedings. This relief cannot be granted, particularly in exercise of the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order passed by the third respondent does not suffer from any error. No relief of regularization can be granted, much less by way of a writ of mandamus in these proceedings. Hence, we find no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed." 15. It is, therefore, clear that the prayer for exchange has already been rejected by a Division Bench of this Court. 16. Even otherwise, insofar as the judgements cited are concerned, similar judgements as also the judgment in the case of Janta Udyog Mandal Vidyalaya (supra) were the subject matter of consideration by a Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench vide judgement dated 09.02.2015 in Writ Petition No. 54062 of 2013 (Jagat Narain & 15 Others vs. State of UP & Others) has held that any settlement of land in favour of its unauthorized occupant on payment of compensation is foreign to the provisions contained in UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act and, therefore, such an order cannot be passed. The judgment in the case of Janta Udyog Mandal Vidyalaya has been specifically overrulled. 17. Accordingly and in view of the above discussion, the writ petition is wholly devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.