JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J. – Heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4, Land Management Committee and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3. 2. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 10.06.2016 as well as the revisional order dated 02.09.2016. 3. Proceedings were intiated against the petitioners under section 128 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that they were allotted the land on 22.02.1976 which was approved by the S.D.M. on 11.05.1976. Notices were issued to the petitioners on 3.04.2016 to which they have also filed their objection on 23.06.2016. 5. A preliminary objection has been raised by the petitioners that the entire proceedings initiated against them were barred by limiation as the allotment in their favour was in 1976 whereas the proceedings have been initiated in 2016 and that the proceedings would be barred by limitation under section 198 (6) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as Section 128 (1) - (a) read with section 230 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006 and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. "Section 128 (1)-(a) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 reads as under: 128. Cancellation of allotment and lease.- (1) the Collector may, of his own motion and shall on the application of any person aggrieved, inquire in the matter prescribed into any allotment and if he is satisfied that the allotment is in contravention of the provisions of this Code or any of the enactments repealed by this Code or the rules made thereunder. He may cancel the allotment and the lease, if any; (a) in the case of an allotment of land made before the commencement of this Code, within five years from the date of such commencement." 6. Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that it has been held by this Court that if the allottment in favour of the petitioners has been made by way of fraud then the bar of 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. 7. 7. 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 . 8. 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. 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. 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. 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." 9. Sri Mata Prasad 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. 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. 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." 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the issue of limitation may be decided as a preliminary issue. 11. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2, Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Mathura before whom the matter is pending, to decide the question as to whether the proceedings are barred by limitation under Section 28 (1) (a) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 or not. The trial court for this purpose will also have to record a finding as to whether the allotment in favour of the petitioner was obtained by way of fraud or not for which purpose the parties shall lead their evidence. Petition Disposed of.