JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-institution, Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.2014, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. By this order, it has been directed that the name of the petitioner-institution be expunged from Plot No. 1454-Kha area 0.421 Hectare and Plot No. 1451-Ka area 0.065 Hectare. 3. Contention of learned counsel is that the land in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner-institution by the Gaon Sabha in the year 1966. On the start of the consolidation operations, an objection under Section 9-A (2) was filed, which has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 20.1.1989 and the petitioner was ordered to be recorded over the land in question. 4. On 6.5.2013, the contesting respondent No. 4 filed a revision alleging therein that no order had been passed by the Consolidation Officer and that there was no allotment in favour of the petitioner by the Gaon Sabha; that the petitioners' name was fraudulently recorded over the land in question. 5. On the revision being filed, the Deputy Director of Consolidation called for a report from the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who reported that no record of the alleged case decided by the Consolidation Officer on 20.1.1989 had been consigned to the record room. 6. The revision was contested by the petitioner and it was alleged that it had been filed by an unconcerned person, almost 23 years after the order has been passed. The revisionist had no locus in the matter. 7. Despite contest by the petitioner, the revision was allowed as noted above. 8. It is submitted that the educational institution is running since the year 1948. It is also contended that against the order of the Consolidation Officer, a revision was preferred, straightaway, without taking recourse to an appeal. The revision, therefore, was not liable to have been entertained. 9. Lastly, it has been contended that once the revision of the respondent No. 4 was treated as a complaint, the revision could not have been decided without providing a copy of the report submitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation to the petitioner. 10. It is also contended that no specific order, condoning the delay in filing the revision, has been passed. 11. 10. It is also contended that no specific order, condoning the delay in filing the revision, has been passed. 11. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha as also learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents have supported the impugned order. 12. They have submitted that land in question was public utility land and, therefore, the same could not have been subject matter of any allotment. In any case, neither any record of an allotment by the Gaon Sabha is available nor has any proof of such an allotment been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not produced, either before the court below or before this Court, any document to show that an objection filed before the Consolidation Officer was, in fact, registered and decided by the order dated 20.1.1989. 13. On the strength of the above arguments, it has been contended that the impugned order has rightly been passed. A fraudulent entry has been ordered to be corrected and the order, therefore, calls for no interference. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 15. At the very outset, it would be relevant to note that on a pointed query made to learned counsel for the petitioner, he has stated that no document or any other material has been filed on record of this writ petition to establish a valid allotment in favour of the petitioner. However, a photostat copy of a document dated 5.12.1994 has been filed as Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition, which is stated to be the statement of the Deputy Manager of the petitioner-institution, recorded in some proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 5.12.1995. In this statement, it has been stated that in the year 1966, the land in question had been given to the petitioner-institution for a period of 99 years on rent of Rs. 1/- per year. 16. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner and the land had been leased out for a period of 99 years on a token rent of Rs. 1/- per year by the Gaon Sabha. 17. In my considered opinion, there exists no provision of law where under such a lease could have been granted to the petitioner. 18. In the year 1966, any lease by the Gaon Sabha could have been either of Sirdari rights or Asami rights. 1/- per year by the Gaon Sabha. 17. In my considered opinion, there exists no provision of law where under such a lease could have been granted to the petitioner. 18. In the year 1966, any lease by the Gaon Sabha could have been either of Sirdari rights or Asami rights. None of these leases contemplate leasing out the land at the rate of Rs. 1/- per year. Rental value of such leases is always based on the land revenue to which the land is assessed. Even otherwise, in the absence of any other evidence on record, this statement of the Deputy Manager, made in some other proceedings, is at best, is self serving admission, which does not confer any right in favour of the petitioner-institution. 19. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that no record of any allotment made by the Gaon Sabha regarding the land in dispute is available. 20. The above submission coupled with the fact that no documentary proof of an allotment, in favour of the petitioner, has been produced, this Court is unable to accept that any valid allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner. An allotment by the Gaon Sabha would be established by a certificate of allotment. No certificate of allotment has been produced either before this Court or before the court below. The theory of allotment, therefore, cannot be accepted. 21. Insofar as, the order of the Consolidation Officer, passed on 20.1.1989 in favour of the petitioner-institution, is concerned, no record of such a case is traceable in the record room. Neither any Goshwara entry of such a case is available. 22. Under the circumstances and in view of the above discussion, this Court is constrained to hold that there was no basis for recording the name of the petitioner and the entry has rightly been found to be a fraudulent and forged entry. 23. Since, this Court has found that the entry, in favour of the petitioner, is fraudulent, the submission, that an educational institution is running over the land regarding which the fraudulent entry had been procured, will not make any difference. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reap the benefits of its fraudulent actions. For the same reason, there is no illegality, even if, there is no order condoning the delay in fling the revision as delay is immaterial in cases of fraud. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reap the benefits of its fraudulent actions. For the same reason, there is no illegality, even if, there is no order condoning the delay in fling the revision as delay is immaterial in cases of fraud. 24. The contention, that no appeal was filed and that straightaway a revision against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner, is also without substance. It is settled law that a person can straightaway file a revision against an order passed by the Consolidation Officer by passing the statutory remedy of appeal. 25. The only other contention which survives for consideration is that once a report had been submitted by Settlement Officer Consolidation, whether a copy of the same should have been made available to the petitioner before reliance was placed thereupon. 26. It is not in dispute that upon the revision being preferred, a report was called for and the same was duly submitted by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. This report was, therefore, available on record of the revision, which has duly been contested by the petitioner. The petitioner was, therefore, fully aware of the report and merely because a formal order has not been passed directing that the copy of the report be served upon the petitioner, the same is, in my considered opinion, does not vitiate the impugned orders. 27. Moreover, the petitioner was definitely aware of the report on the day, the impugned order was passed. It is only thereafter that the instant writ petition has been filed. However, no material has been brought on record to either show that the report was not valid nor any material been filed that would even lead to a conclusion that a case under Section 9(2)-A was filed at the existence of the petitioner. 28. In view of the forgoing discussion, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner is, no doubt, guilty of fraud and, therefore, the name of the petitioner-institution has rightly been ordered to be expunged. The petition is liable to fail and is hereby dismissed. 29. In the operative portion of the impugned order, directions has been issued against the guilty persons. Learned Standing Counsel must ensure that these directions are duly complied with. The petition is liable to fail and is hereby dismissed. 29. In the operative portion of the impugned order, directions has been issued against the guilty persons. Learned Standing Counsel must ensure that these directions are duly complied with. A letter in this regard be sent to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/DM-Mainpuri, along with a certified copy of this order forthwith for necessary action.