JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Grirish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.E. Khan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2, Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 and perused the record. 2. Controversy in the instant case relates to plots situated at village Ashipur, Bhagipur and Dariyapur. As per the case of the petitioner, the same was fraudulently added with revenue record in the name of opposite party No. 3 alongwith the mother of petitioner/Yasoda Devi in Khatauni of 1363-1365 Fasli year. 3. So Sri Ghanshyam son of Pudai Saroj resident of village Aasipur Pargana Patti Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh made a complaint dated 3.6.2009 before District Magistrate, Pratapgarh vide letter No. 1057/3.6.2009 for correction of the said entry in the revenue record, as such, a proceeding under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 (herein after referred as ‘ Act’) has been initiated. Accordingly, a Case No. 41/37 (State v. Paras Nath alias Ramesh Chandra) has been registered in the Court of Sub Division Magistrate, Raniganj, Pratapgarh in which a report was called from the Naib Tehsildar, whether the complaint made by Ghanshyam is genuine or not. 4. From the perusal of said report which is original record produced by learned Standing Counse, the position which emerge out to the effect that Naib Tehsildar Raniganj District Pratapgarh has submitted in his report that there is no person in the name of Sri Ghanshyam son of Pudai Saroj resides in village Aasipur Pargana Patti Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh and the complaint is forged one. 5. Petitioner/Girish Dutt Pandey in the matter in question moved an application dated 18.3.2010 (Anneuxre No. 4) before opposite party No. 2/Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh with the prayer that as the entry made in the revenue record are forged and fabricated so by virtue of same, benefit cannot be given to opposite party No. 3, as such, he may be allowed to pursue the complaint made by Ghanshayam. 6. By order dated 7.2.20111 opposite party No. 2 rejected the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Act in Case No. 41/37. 7. 6. By order dated 7.2.20111 opposite party No. 2 rejected the proceeding under Section 33/39 of the Act in Case No. 41/37. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2011 passed by opposite party No. 2 in Case No. 41/37, petitioner filed a Revision No. 58 (Girish Dutt Pandey v. Paras Nath and others) under Section 219 of the Act, dismissed by order dated 18.3.2013. 8. Orders dated 17.2.2011 and 18.3.2013 passed by opposite parties No. 2 and 1 receptively are challenged in the present writ petition. 9. Sri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 raised a preliminary objection that once on the basis of inquiry it has been found that complaint filed by Sri Ghanshyam under Section 33/39 of the Act for correction in revenue record is forge and fabricated one as no person in the name of Sri Ghanshyam son of Pudai Saroj resides in village Aasipur Pargana Patti Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh then in that circumstances petitioner has got no locus whatsoever to pursue the said complaint as such the writ petition liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 10. Sri G.C.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner while rebutting the said contention on the basis of provisions as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act which reads “on receiving an application under sub-section(1) or any error or omission in the annual register coming to his knowledge otherwise, the Tehsildar shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and then refer the case to the Collector, who shall dispose it of, after deciding the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 40”, submits that proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act in case No. 41/37 which has been initiated on the basis of complaint can be pursued by the petitioner. 11. In order to elaborate the said arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has given waitage on the word ‘otherwise’ and accordingly it is submitted that keeping in view the said word petitioner can pursue the complaint made by Ghanshyam registered as case No. 41/37 under Section 33/39 of the Act. 11. In order to elaborate the said arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has given waitage on the word ‘otherwise’ and accordingly it is submitted that keeping in view the said word petitioner can pursue the complaint made by Ghanshyam registered as case No. 41/37 under Section 33/39 of the Act. Keeping in view the fact that once it came to the knowledge of opposite party No. 2 that entries in the revenue record is in the name of Sri Parasnath/opposite party No. 3 is wrongly entered then in that circumstances he is duty bound to make correction in the revenue record in a proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act, so the objection raised by opposite party No. 3 is wholly misconceived, liable to be rejected. 12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as per the admitted position of the case a complaint was made by one Sri Ghanshyam son of Pudai Saroj dated 3.6.2009, so a case 41/37 under Section 33/39 of the Act, registered before opposite party No. 2 in which a report has been called, submitted by Naib Tehsildar, Raniganj, Pratapgarh dated 6.11.2009 categorically stating therein that no person in the name of Sri Ghanshyam son of Pudai Saroj resides in village Aasipur Pargana Patti Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh and the complaint is forge one, the said report is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter in case No. 41/37 on behalf of the petitioner an application has been moved on 18.3.2010 to pursue the same. 13. By order dated 17.2.2011, opposite party No. 2 rejected the same with the observation that complaint filed by Ghanshyam on the basis of which a case No. 41/37 under Section 33/39 registered is forge and fabricated one, relevant findings reads as under : ÞmHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh cgl lquh xbZ rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dk fof/kor ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA miyCèk lk{;ksa ls fofnr gskrk gS dh ?ku';ke lqr iM+s uke dk dksbZ Hkh oäh xkao vlhiqj esa vkoflr ugha gS] mlds uke o gLrk{kj ls QthZ f'kdk;r ÁLrqr dh xbZA tkapksijkar f'kdk;r fujk/kkj gks tkus ij fxjh'k nŸk ikaMs; tk¡p vk[;k ds fo:) vkifŸk ÁLrqr dh xbZ gSAÞ 14. Accordingly, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner can pursue the Case No. 41/37 under Section 33/39 of the Act in view of word “otherwise” as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 39 of the Act is wholly misconceived because once it has been established on the basis of material on record that very initiation of proceedings under Section 33/39 of the Act is based on forge and fabricated document then no further proceedings can be initiated on on the basis of same because it is settled proposition of law that “ Fraud avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical or temporal” and no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything. (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 . In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All ER 349). 15. In Smt. Shrisht Dhawn v. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under : “Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.” 16. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and others, (2000) 3 SCC 581 , the Apex Court observed that “ Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. (See: S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 ; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others, (2003) 8 SCC 319 ; and Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and another v. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325) 17. In Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and another, AIR 1994 SC 215 ; and State of Maharashtra and others v. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481 , the Apex Court has observed that a writ Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith as equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasions and sub-letties invented to evade law. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 19. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 19. However, as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, a liberty is given to the petitioner to approach appropriate Court for redressal of his grievance raised in the present case as per law, if so advised.