JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard Shri Shyam Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 14 to 16 in the writ petition. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950, and is directed against the orders dated 2.12.1993 passed by the Additional Collector (Nazool), Allahabad and dated 14.6.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue. 3. By these orders, the allotment, in favour of the petitioner, has been cancelled and the order affirmed by the Board of Revenue. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2, by his order dated 2.12.1993, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and other persons relying solely upon the report of S.D.M., Handia dated 4.10.1993. 5. Against the order, five persons filed revisions; one by these five persons was Israji w/o Ram Nath. 6. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 21.2.1997, referred the matter to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that the revision be allowed and the matter be remanded back for fresh consideration. 7. The Board of Revenue, by its order dated 19.4.2001, did not accept the recommendation of the Commissioner and dismissed the revision. 8. On 5.3.2008, a Revision No. 256 of 2007-08 was filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue challenging the order dated 21.2.1997 whereby her allotment also had been cancelled. The petitioner is Israji Devi w/o Hari Ram. 9. However, the revision has been dismissed vide order dated 14.6.2016. Hence, this writ petition. 10. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had cancelled the allotment, made by the Gaon Sabha, relying solely upon the report of the S.D.M. Handia. This, it has been submitted, is not permissible in law. No illegality in the allotment or the procedure for allotment has been pointed out in the order. The same was, therefore, wholly vitiated. In any case, the petitioner had no notice or intimation of the proceedings and the order of cancellation against her, was ex parte. 11. The second contention of learned counsel is that the petitioner was not a revisionist in the earlier revision, which was referred to the Board of Revenue and which came to be rejected on 19.4.2001. In any case, the petitioner had no notice or intimation of the proceedings and the order of cancellation against her, was ex parte. 11. The second contention of learned counsel is that the petitioner was not a revisionist in the earlier revision, which was referred to the Board of Revenue and which came to be rejected on 19.4.2001. The revision of the petitioner, filed in the year 2007-08, has been dismissed solely on the ground of the earlier order of Board of Revenue on 19.4.2001, without considering its merit. 12. It has also been submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Brahm Singh vs. Board of Revenue; 2008 (105) RD 1. 13. Relying upon this Full Bench decision, it has been submitted that the Additional Collector had cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, but such an order was not within his competence. The order of cancellation could have been passed by the Collector alone. The Additional Collector could have cancelled the allotment only if the power conferred upon the Collector had been directed to be exercised by the Additional Collector by the Collector himself. 14. It has additionally been submitted that the complainant were not aggrieved persons, and therefore, the lease could have been cancelled at their instance. It has lastly been submitted that the Board of Revenue has not considered the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner nor has considered the case law cited. 15. Shri Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 14 to 16, has submitted that the very basis of the arguments raised by the petitioner is false. The petitioner was arrayed as respondent in the revision, which has been referred to the Board of Revenue and which reference came to be rejected as was the revision by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 19.4.2001. 16. He has also referred to the various certified copies filed along with the counter affidavit, which are the Vakalatnama filed by the petitioner in the proceedings before the Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad. This Vakalatnama had been filed by Shri Yograj Singh on behalf of Israji W/o Hari Ram and others. 17. 16. He has also referred to the various certified copies filed along with the counter affidavit, which are the Vakalatnama filed by the petitioner in the proceedings before the Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad. This Vakalatnama had been filed by Shri Yograj Singh on behalf of Israji W/o Hari Ram and others. 17. The certified copy of the objection filed through Shri Yograj Singh, Advocate, and an application, for vacation of the interim order granted in favour of the respondents, have also been filed. 18. Additionally, it has been submitted that after considering the objection filed, also on behalf of the petitioner, the interim order granted in the proceedings under Section 198 (4), in favour of the petitioner, was confirmed. 19. It has also been submitted that although the petitioner was not one of the revisionists in the revision, which was referred to the Board of Revenue, she was arrayed as an opposite party therein. The Board of Revenue had issued notices to her, and therefore, she was well aware of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 19.4.2001, which was binding upon her. The Board of Revenue has, therefore, rightly dismissed her revision filed in the year 2007-08 on account of the order dated 19.4.2001, having attained finality. 20. It is, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 21. I have considered the submissions made learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 22. Upon a perusal of the order passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Allahabad, this Court finds that the same was passed, no doubt, relying upon the report of the S.D.M. Handia. However, an additional finding was returned that the allottees, including the petitioner, were not eligible persons. 23. This finding has been assailed in the writ petition by alleging that the petitioner was eligible for allotment as she was poor and belonged to the Other Backward Class and her husband was possessed of only two bigha land at the time of the allotment in her favour. It has also been averred that her husband was not running wood business. 24. It has also been averred that her husband was not running wood business. 24. These averments have been replied in the paragraph No. 17 of the counter affidavit, wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner's husband has a saw mill, possesses a Tata Safari-UP 70 CR 9460, a Fort Figo-UP 70 DX 173 and he is also the owner of a Tractor. 25. In paragraph No. 16 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has replied to the contents of paragraph No. 17 of the counter affidavit. stating therein that no vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner nor she has any land in her name. It has also been contended that her husband does not have a saw mill. 26. Additionally, it has been stated that no documentary evidence, in support of the averments made in the paragraph under reply (of the counter affidavit), has been filed. 27. Upon a conjoint reading of the averments made in the writ petition, the counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits, this Court finds that there is no denial of the averment made in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner is the owner of a Tractor, a Tata Safari and a Ford Figo car. It does not stand to reason that an agricultural labour, as the petitioner's husband is alleged to be, could afford three vehicles, the aggregate cost whereof would be almost 15 lakhs. 28. Besides, the very basis of the petitioner's case that she was not a revisionist and, therefore, not bound by the earlier order passed by the Board of Revenue on 19.4.2001 is without any basis. She was a party to the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. 29. Moreover, documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. It has been specifically argued that she had no notice or information of the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment and that her lease has been cancelled ex parte. This argument and assertion is shown to be totally false by the certified copies of the various documents filed along with counter affidavit. 30. The Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the petitioner had intimation of the proceedings for cancellation of the lease and participated therein. She also had information of the revision, which was referred to the Board of Revenue as also the order dated 19.4.2001. 31. 30. The Court is, therefore, constrained to hold that the petitioner had intimation of the proceedings for cancellation of the lease and participated therein. She also had information of the revision, which was referred to the Board of Revenue as also the order dated 19.4.2001. 31. Even if, it is assumed that she has no knowledge of the revision filed by five other persons, which was referred to the Board of Revenue, the fact still remains that she never challenged the order of the Chief Revenue Officer dated 2.12.1993, cancelling her lease despite knowledge of the same till 5.3.2008. She had been impleaded as an opposite party in the revision referred to the Board of Revenue and in absence of any material, this Court has to assume that notice of this revision must have been served upon her. 32. Under the circumstances, as noticed above, the order passed by the Board of Revenue, dismissing the revision, filed by the petitioner on account of the earlier order dated 19.4.2001 whereby the reference to the Board of Revenue was rejected and the order of cancellation of allotment affirmed, was binding upon the petitioner as she was a party thereto and the Board of the Revenue could not have taken any view to the contrary. Her revision was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the impguned order and the order calls for no interference. 32. This Court additionally finds that the revision as also the instant writ petition are based on falsehood. Despite having contested the proceedings for cancellation of her allotment, the petitioner has alleged lack of knowledge of these proceedings. Therefore, not only is the writ petition liable to be dismissed, it is also liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. 34. Reliance upon the Full Bench decision in the case of Brahm Singh (supra) also does not help the petitioner in any manner. 35. The revision of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the controversy stood decided by an order passed by the Board of Revenue itself on 19.4.2001, in a revision to which the petitioner was a party. 36. Besides, the issue of lack of jurisdiction does not appear to have been raised either before the C.R.O. or in the revision before the Board of Revenue. 37. It has been raised for the first time in the writ petition. 36. Besides, the issue of lack of jurisdiction does not appear to have been raised either before the C.R.O. or in the revision before the Board of Revenue. 37. It has been raised for the first time in the writ petition. No such ground finds a mention in the impugned revisional order. In any case, the Full Bench has held that even an Additional Collector can exercise the powers of a Collector provided he has been so authorized by the Collector himself. 38. This issue is being raised for first time in the writ petition. Besides, there is no factual foundation for the same in the writ petition. It has nowhere been alleged or averred that the Collector had not authorized the Additional Collector to exercise his powers. There is no averment in this regard in the counter affidavit also nor any material is available on record before the courts below. 39. In the absence of any factual foundation, the issue that has been raised cannot be determined conclusively and the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit by the Full Bench decision. 40. Accordingly and for the reasons above, this petition, which is based on utter falsehood, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner must deposit the same within 21 days from today, failing which, the cost shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.