JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. – Heard Sri Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3. No one appears for the respondent no.1. In view of the order sought to be passed it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent nos.4 to 6. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 13.7.2016 whereby the court has proceeded with the matter under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been in possession of the land. Patta was allotted in 2003 and proceedings have been initiated only in 2014 and in the meantime Bhumidhari rights have also been conferred upon the petitioners. Therefore, the entire proceedings were barred by time in view of the provisions of Section 198 (6) of the Act. 4. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Suresh Giri and others v. Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad through its Registrar and others 2010 (109) RD 566 . 5. Sri Mata Prasad submits that in the allotment on the basis of fraud limitation will not be a hurdle to proceedings under Section 198(4) of the Act and the matter can always be examined in the pending proceedings itself as to whether fraud is established or not. 6. In the case of Suresh Giri (supra) learned Single Judge has held in Paras 19 and 20 which read as under: - "19. It is well known that fraud vitiates every solemen act and an act of fraud is always to be viewed seriously. The observation of Lord Justice Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, which is quoted below works as a lighthouse even today for those dispensing justice. "No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud. "No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." In view of the above, there is no room to doubt that an order of allotment of land, if obtained by collusion or fraud cannot be allowed to stand and the Court would not intervene in such matters so as to permit squandering of the property of the State which vests in the Gaon Sabha. Protection of the State property from such fraud by initiation of action for cancellation of allotment/lease would however, be independent of the power of cancellation of such allotment envisaged under section 198(4) of the Act for the reason that section 198 (4) comes into play in the limited sphere where the allotment is found to be irregular and not otherwise. Accordingly, in my considered opinion cancellation of allotment/lease on account of fraud is altogether an separate exercise which can be undertaken by the authorities concerned irrespective of section 198(4) of the Act. However, proceedings for cancellation of allotment of land/lease on the ground of fraud has to be exercised with great care & caution and not blindly or on unilateral version. It is only when the concerned authority on the basis of relevant material has a reason to believe that the allotment is based upon fraud it may proceed in the matter. In so determining the stand, a distinction has to be made between fraud played by the beneficiary or the fraud committed by the officers or the authorities. Where the authority is of the opinion that the allottee is responsible for the alleged fraud it can initiate proceedings for cancellation of the allotment/lease and after giving opportunity of hearing to him may cancel the same. In the event the authority feels otherwise and the involvement of the allottee is not found and the needle of suspension is upon some employee/officer action it must take appropriate action first against such employee/officer and simultaneously if considered proper for cancellation of allotment/lease. 20. In view of above, it is held that the period of limitation prescribed under section 198(6) of the Act for issuance of notice before cancellation of the allotment of the land/lease is applicable even to suo motu proceedings. 20. In view of above, it is held that the period of limitation prescribed under section 198(6) of the Act for issuance of notice before cancellation of the allotment of the land/lease is applicable even to suo motu proceedings. However, the Collector is not forbidden to initiate proceedings for cancellation even after the expiry of limitation prescribed, provided he has reason to believe that the allotment is likely to vitiate on account of fraud but in exercise of such power has to act with great circumspection as observed above and not in a routine or a causal manner." 7. Sri Mata Prasad on the other hand has referred to another judgement of learned a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shakuntala v. State of U.P. 2012 (117) RD 90 which has followed the judgement of this Court in the case of Suresh Giri (supra). Para 10, 11 and 12 read as under: - "10. While going through the record of this case it appears that the proceedings against the petitioner was started much after the period of limitation provided under 198 (6) of the Act. The initiation of the proceedings were at the instance of Respondent no.5, Surendra Pal. The reason for initiating proceedings were that the allegation against the petitioner was that she was the daughter of then Pradhan and was a minor at the time of allotment of the lease and, therefore, it was invalid. According to the impugned order, the allegation requires to be adjudicated after evidence has been led by both the parties. Under such circumstances, the Collector has condoned the delay in filing the complaint. 11. Clearly, from the aforesaid allegation, prima-facie, it appears that there are allegation of fraud and manipulation at the instance of petitioner/her father, who was Gram Pradhan at the time when the allotment was made and the petitioner was a minor. When there are allegation of fraud and manipulation there can be no bar for initiation of proceedings even if they are beyond the period prescribed under Section 198 (6) (b) of the Act. Fraud vitiates the most solemn act and, therefore, to read the provisions of limitation against the complainant when fraud is alleged and prima-facie visible would be to scuttle the very purpose of provision of Section 198 (4) of the Act. 12. Fraud vitiates the most solemn act and, therefore, to read the provisions of limitation against the complainant when fraud is alleged and prima-facie visible would be to scuttle the very purpose of provision of Section 198 (4) of the Act. 12. Under such circumstances, if fraud is committed the lease has to be cancelled and for that provision of section 198(6) (b) cannot be brought in as a shield to protect the alleged fraudster." 8. Sri Mata Prasad has referred to the application which has been resulted in Suit No.1027 of 2014, filed by Ram Murti in which serious allegation is that the petitioners were related to the Pradhan of the village concerned and for this reason the land was allotted to them. He further submits that on the ground of relationship land in any case could not have been allotted to the petitioners. 9. He further submits that another ground taken is that the petitioners do not belong to the village concerned, therefore, the entire act of allotment of the land was fraudulent. 10. Be that as it may, these are the matters to be examined by the courts below, therefore, no finding from the High Court is required at this stage. 11. The fact of the matter, however, remains that by subsequent order dated 14.10.2016 the evidence of the parties has been closed and now next date fixed is 23.11.2016. 12. Therefore, considering the matter in the light of the facts of the case and judgement of Suresh Giri (supra), in my opinion, the order dated 14.10.2016 and the revisional order dated 27.9.2016 cannot survive and are quashed. 13. The writ petition is partly allowed. 14. A direction is issued to the respondent no.3, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Shahjahanpur before whom the case is stated to be pending to proceed with the matter giving 15 days to the petitioner as a last opportunity to lead his evidence, thereafter, respondent no.3 shall decide the matter finally within a period of two months. Petition Partly allowed.