JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the same order passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation (for short the DDDC). They have, therefore, being heard together and are being decided by a common order. 2. I have heard Shri Dr. H.N. Tripathi for the petitioners in writ petition no. 15740 of 2015, Shri S.N. Mishra for the petitioners in writ petition No. 36795 of 2015, Shri R.C. Upadhyay for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel in both the writ petitions. 3. Writ Petition No. 15740 of 2015 has been filed by Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh through its founder/ Manager. Writ Petition No. 36795 of 2015 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Shri Durga Ji Mandir Trust, Chandesar, Azamgarh through its Manager, Dr. Phool Chandra Singh. In both these writ petitions, the order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the DDDC is under challenge. 4. By this order, the amaldaramad over plot nos. 679 area 4.619 acre, 706 area 0.710 acre, 528 area 3.002 acre and 363 area 0.320 acre made in pursuance of an alleged order of the Consolidation Officer (the CO) Circle No. 7, dated 11.10.1965 and 01.10.1965 made in CH Form 45 has been held to be a nullity and these plots have been directed to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha, as they were, prior to the amaldaramad. Further directions have been issued that necessary correction be made in the revenue records and the A.D.M., Sadar has been directed to obtain possession of the said plots and to put the Gaon Sabha in possession thereof. 5. The contention of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that this order has been passed ex parte without any notice or information to the petitioners and the same is therefore, liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Dr. H.N. Tripathi has further submitted that the order has been passed relying upon a decision of the Apex Court which had no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of the Apex Court relied upon by the DDDC had been passed in an entirely different set up circumstances and, therefore, the same was wrongly invoked in the instant case. The order of the Apex Court relied upon by the DDDC had been passed in an entirely different set up circumstances and, therefore, the same was wrongly invoked in the instant case. The judgement relied upon by the DDDC and referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners was in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath and others reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853. 6. The Apex Court in the aforementioned judgement has held that a person whose case is based on fraud has no right to approach the Court that he can be thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Dr. Tripathi submits that the finding of fraud has been returned by the DDDC without hearing the petitioners and without affording them any opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the DDDC while exercising powers under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) is required to pass orders, after hearing the parties. This statutory mandate has not been complied with and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. He further submits that the Gaon Sabha granted a lease of the disputed land in the name of Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh, in the year 1965. 8. The CO, thereafter, by an order dated 11.10.1965 in case no. 1, under Section 12 of the Act, directed that the name of Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh be recorded over the land which was recorded as usar and naveen parti. In pursuance of the order necessary incorporation was made in CH Form-45 in 1977. Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh became bhumidhari of the land in dispute in 1978. It is further stated that one Chandrabali Brahmachari was founder/manager of Shri Durga Ji Mandir Trust, Chandesar, Azamgarh, Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandeshar, Azamgarh, Shri Durga Ji Intermediate College, Chandesar, Azamgarh as also Shri Durga Ji Junior High School, Chandesar, Azamgrah and he became absolute owner of the land in question. Shri Durga Ji Mandir Trust Chandesar, Azamgarh, therefore, executed a registered patta Dwami on 29.03.1996 in favour of the All India Children Care and Educational Development Society, Azamgarh, on payment of a premiun Rs. 50,000/- and upon payment of Rs. 100/- per annum as lease rent, for opening a Medical College. Shri Durga Ji Mandir Trust Chandesar, Azamgarh, therefore, executed a registered patta Dwami on 29.03.1996 in favour of the All India Children Care and Educational Development Society, Azamgarh, on payment of a premiun Rs. 50,000/- and upon payment of Rs. 100/- per annum as lease rent, for opening a Medical College. It is alleged that this patta Dwami was later on corrected in pursuance of a judgement and decree passed by the civil court. After the patta was executed, a building has been constructed and a college is running thereupon apart from other educational institutions. The Collector is said to be annoyed and, therefore, various reports were obtained and on its basis of the revenue entries have been ordered to be expunged and the land directed to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. 9. Although a large number of averments have been made in the writ petition, however, only two, to my mind, are relevant. First that the Gaon Sabha had granted a lease in favour of the Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh whereafter the revenue records were duly corrected. 10. The other relevant contention is that entries in favour of Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh have been ordered to be expunged and the land directed to be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha by an order, passed ex parte, without any notice or information to the petitioners and without hearing them. 11. The DDDC has categorically observed in the impugned order that since the entry is fraudulent, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given for correcting this fraudulent entry. 12. The contention of Shri R.C. Upadhyay, counsel for the Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing Counsel is that no lease was executed as is alleged by the petitioners. No record of any such allotment proceedings exists. The theory of allotment is also not established because no copy of the alleged patta has been filed on record. The revenue entries in favour of the Degree college were fraudulent. No record of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Circle No. 7, wherein the order is alleged to have been passed for recording the name of the degree college in proceedings under Section 12 of the Act exist and there is no goswara entry to show that any such case was registered and decided. 13. No record of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Circle No. 7, wherein the order is alleged to have been passed for recording the name of the degree college in proceedings under Section 12 of the Act exist and there is no goswara entry to show that any such case was registered and decided. 13. Relying upon the observation made in the impugned order, it has further been submitted that, in any case, it was the case of the petitioners that a single allotment was made. However, there is no explanation as to why two separate orders came to be passed by the CO regarding one allotment. This fact also shows that the revenue entries are forged and fraudulent. 14. It is next submitted that there is no provision under the UP Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act for allotment in favour of a private degree college and, therefore, also the petitioners' case have no legs to stand on. Also, the petitioners have not filed the copy of any such alleged allotment in their favour. It has also been submitted that consolidation courts have no right to grant sirdari rights under the Act. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 16. The DDDC has recorded that no record of the proceedings on the basis whereof, the amaldaramad has been made in the revenue records, is available. Even in the Goswara, there is a double entry and, therefore, the entry in favour of the petitioners has been found to be forged and fraudulent. 17. The DDDC has also observed that there is no justification why two separate amaldaramads have been made when there was a single claim and when a single order was passed in a single case. This circumstance was found to render the amaldarmads doubtful and forged. The view taken, prima facie, appears to be justified. 18. As already stated above, there is no doubt that the order impugned has been passed ex parte. However, it is relevant to note observe that although the case of an allotment made by the Gaon Sabha is the basis of theses writ petitions, no copy of the alleged lease deed/ patta has been filed on record. 19. 18. As already stated above, there is no doubt that the order impugned has been passed ex parte. However, it is relevant to note observe that although the case of an allotment made by the Gaon Sabha is the basis of theses writ petitions, no copy of the alleged lease deed/ patta has been filed on record. 19. On a pointed query in this regard, the only submission made by Dr H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners is that this document has not been filed on record. In my considered opinion, this reply of Dr. Tripathi is not an adequate reply especially, in view of the categorical finding of fraud recorded by the DDDC. This Court is of the considered opinion that once a categorical finding of fraud had been returned by in the order impugned, the petitioners should have necessarily filed the alleged document of title in their favour and its absence casts an extremely serious doubt upon their claim. 20. However, it is equally true and has repeatedly been held that in cases where serious civil consequence ensue, orders must not be passed without affording opportunity of hearing the party concerned i.e. the orders should not be passed ex parte. 21. In such view of the matter, it appears appropriate that the petitioners be provided a post decisional hearing. The impugned order of the DDDC, which records a categorical finding of fraud having been resorted to, is not being set aside as the petitioners have failed to produce their basic document of title, the alleged lease by the Goan Sabha, in their favour. 22. In this connection, it would, however, be relevant to observe that there is no provision under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act for allotment of a lease in favour of a Private Degree College as is the allegation of the petitioners'. 23. It is also relevant to observe that since it has been stated that the allotment by the Gaon Sabha was made in favour of Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh, the Committee of Management of Shri Durga Ji Mandir Trust, Chandesar, Azamgarh as also its Manager are not entitled to maintain any objection or to challenge the order impugned. 24. 24. It would further be relevant to note that the one of the contentions sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that a very huge investment has been made and a Medical College and other educational institutions have been constructed over the land in question which are also charitable institutions and, therefore, performing a public function. 25. In this connection, it would be relevant to record a categorical finding that the contention that a huge investment has been made, is of no consequence, in case, the finding of fraud recorded in the impugned order is upheld. Any claim which is based upon fraud cannot be glossed over or ignored on the ground of equity. No equity lies in favour of fraudster or anybody, claiming through him. 26. Besides, a Division Bench of this Court, in Jagat Narain & 15 Others vs. State of U.P. thru Secretary & 3 Others, vide its judgement dated 09.02.2015, upon a reference made to it. has held that merely because a person has been in long possession over Gaon Sabha land, an award of damages instead of his eviction would not be the appropriate relief and that no such provision has been made by the legislature. In this judgement, the Division Bench has considered the judgment in the case of Ajanta Mandal Vidyala where in the single Judge had held that establishment of an Educational Institution was a public purpose and its demolition would be unjust, and, therefore, occupation of the Gaon Sabha land was regularized subject to deposit of damages. This judgement in the case of Ajanta Udyog Mandal Vidyalay vs. State of UP (Laws) (Alld) 2005 (1) 103 has be specifically overruled by the Division Bench as not laying down the correct law. 27. Moreover, since a very area of land is alleged to have been leased out which is well in excess of 5 acres, the allegation of an allotment by the Gaon Sabha, prima facie does not impress this Court. 28. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of subject to the following directions: - 1. The petitioner Sri Durgaji Degree College, Chandesar, in Writ Petition No. 15740 of 2015, alone shall appear before the DDDC, the respondent no. 1 along with a detailed objection annexing thereto the entire evidence they seek rely upon, on 4th January, 2016. 2. The petitioner Sri Durgaji Degree College, Chandesar, in Writ Petition No. 15740 of 2015, alone shall appear before the DDDC, the respondent no. 1 along with a detailed objection annexing thereto the entire evidence they seek rely upon, on 4th January, 2016. 2. This objection must necessarily contain the original allotment alleged to have been made in favour of Shri Durga Ji Degree College, Chandesar, Azamgarh. It is made clear that the objection shall not be entertained or considered in case the original patta is not filed. 3. In case, the objection is filed as specified above and within the time prescribed for the same, the Collector/ DDDC shall consider the same and after affording opportunity of hearing to the objectors as also the Gaon Sabha, pass appropriate orders thereon, positively within a period of four weeks thereafter i.e on or before 29.01.2016. 4. It is relevant to observe that it has been categorically averred in writ petition no. 15740 of 2015 that the dispute, therein, relates only to plot no. 679 area 1.870 hectares. This averment is to be found in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. It must, therefore, necessarily be held that the petitioners in writ petition no. 15740 of 2015, the alleged allottee of the Gaon Sabha, is not disputing the impugned order insofar as it relates to plot no. 686 area 4.47 and plot no. 528 area 1.215 hectares and plot no. 706 area 0.287 hectares. This fact may be taken note of, by the DDDC while considering the objection, if any, to be filed by the petitioners. 5. The order impugned in the writ petition shall abide by the decision taken by the Collector/ DDDC, Azamgarh in pursuance of the directions contained in this order. 29. Accordingly and subject to the aforesaid observations/ directions, the Writ Petition No. 15740 of 2015 is disposed of. 30. Writ Petition No. 36795 of 2015 is by an unconcerned party or in any case the petitioners therein, claim through the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 15740 of 2015. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.