JUDGMENT : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present petition, the order dated 22.01.2014 and 18.12.2017 passed by the appellate court and the revisional court are under challenge in the present petition. 3. The records indicates that an application under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the petitioner with the assertion that the land in question namely in Gata no.169/1.075 kadi 313/1.245 kadi and Gata no.1.192, 2.140 kadi and 1194, 0.147 kadi entered as "Bheeta" and "Banzar" land in Akar Patra 45 be recorded in the name of the petitioner by expunging the entries therein. The said application was allowed vide order dated 14.06.1982 namely case no.524. 4. Resultantly, the appeal no.419/431/457 filed by the State of U.P. and Gram Sabha against the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer for expunging the entries in the name of the Gram Sabha were entertained by condoning the delay in filing thereof vide order dated 22.01.2014 and the date has been fixed for disposal of appeal on merits. 5. This order was challenged in revision which was dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2017. The revisional court taking note of the fact that the consolidation officer had illegally passed the order dated 14.06.1982 with respect to plot no.4447 area 2.440 kadi and plot no.4449 area 0.447 kadi and plot no.2256 area 1.075 and plot no.2298 area 1.245 acres expunging the entries of "Banzar" and "Bheeta" which are the public utility land held that no new rights could have been created by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the petitioner. 6. It is further recorded that the entire exercise was an out come of fraud and the public utility land could not have been entered in the name of the private person. A direction was issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to expunge all such entries and restore the public utility land to its original status by removal of unauthorized occupant thereof. 7. This order is challenged in the present petition with the assertion that it was not open for the revisional court to set aside the order dated 14.06.1982 which has been passed on the merits of the claim of the petitioner while deciding the revision filed by the petitioner against an interim order dated 20.01.2004. 7. This order is challenged in the present petition with the assertion that it was not open for the revisional court to set aside the order dated 14.06.1982 which has been passed on the merits of the claim of the petitioner while deciding the revision filed by the petitioner against an interim order dated 20.01.2004. At the worst, the revision could have been dismissed and the appeal filed by the State of U.P. could have been directed to be decided on merits. 8. To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner suffice it to note that the revisional court namely the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act conferred with wide jurisdiction to undo all wrongs done by the sub-ordinate consolidation authorities. Language of the sub Section (1) of Section 48 is clear and specific. It provides that it is open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to summon the records on its own or on a revision filed for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of proceedings, or correctness or legality or propriety of the proceeding of the order passed by them. 9. Only rider before passing any order sub Section (1) to Section 48 is that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the parties concerned. 10. In the instant case, the revisional court in exercise of power under Section 48(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act had summoned the record of the Court of Consolidation Officer and examined the correctness of the order dated 14.06.1982 whereby new rights were conferred in favour of the petitioner during the course of consolidation. 11. It is noteworthy that the land in question was never allotted in the name of the petitioner nor at any point of time. Any rights could have been conferred in favour of the petitioner only by a competent authority under the provision of law. The name of the petitioner has been recorded for the first time as Bhumidhar pursuant to the order dated 14.06.1982 which has been passed in a proceeding under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 12. The entries in basic year khatauni over the plot in question were of Bheeta and Banzar (public utility land). The name of the petitioner has been recorded for the first time as Bhumidhar pursuant to the order dated 14.06.1982 which has been passed in a proceeding under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 12. The entries in basic year khatauni over the plot in question were of Bheeta and Banzar (public utility land). Even otherwise the land recorded as "Banzar" and entrusted in the Gram Sabha can only be allotted in a proceeding undertaken as per the procedure under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 13. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2011 (3) AWC 2379 in order to impress upon the Court that since the degree college has been constructed over the land in question, a regularization of illegal possession of the petitioner over the land in question is required to be considered. The petitioner is discharging a public function by providing education to the villagers nearby. To deal with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is noteworthy that the petitioner has succeeded in getting the land in question allotted in the name of the degree college in connivance with the then sitting Gram Pradhan who was brother of the petitioner and the Consolidation authorities had committed a fraud upon the process of the Court in passing an order conferring right in favour of the petitioner over the land of public utility. In the result, the petitioner has succeeded in constructing an institute over the land in question which was later on recognized as degree college. 14. Attention of the Court is further invited to the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector dated 03.05.2011 wherein it is demonstrated that the petitioner seeks to exchange the land in question from the land in Gata no.314 area 0.943 hectares and Gata no.166 area 0.435 hectares, Gata no. 313 area 0.504 hectare which are reported as the land of "Pokhri" in the village. That means the petitioner is seeking to exchange the public utility land encroached by him from another public utility land. 15. It is contended by the counsel for the newly impleaded respondent that the sitting Gram Pradhan of the village is daughter-in-law of the present manager of the college. That means the petitioner is seeking to exchange the public utility land encroached by him from another public utility land. 15. It is contended by the counsel for the newly impleaded respondent that the sitting Gram Pradhan of the village is daughter-in-law of the present manager of the college. The petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the land in plot no.166, 313 are Bhumidhari lands of the petitioner. For the said submission reliance is placed upon the report of Lekhpal which has been appended at page no.85 of the paper book. 16. However, no reply has been given to paragraph no.10 of the short counter affidavit filed by the impleaded respondent though copy of the same has been provided to the petitioner. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to substantiate that the land in plot no.166, 313 are lands of original holding of the petitioner. The report of Lekhpal cannot be believed for the assertion made in the writ petition. 17. This apart, it is more than apparent that the petitioner has got land in question allotted by forgery. It is well settled that the fraud vitiate every solemn act. The petitioner cannot be allowed to reap the fruits of the fraud to which he was beneficiary. The prayer made by the petitioner, therefore, to exchange the land in question with any of his Bhumidhari land of the village cannot be accepted. 18. It would be open for the petitioner to make an alternative arrangement for running the degree college constructed over the public utility land and vacate the same on its own or else the revenue authorities shall take the necessary action. 19. For the all above noted reasons, the writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.