JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. Sri Ratnakar Mishra, Additional District Magistrate, Gonda is present in person along with the original revenue record pertaining to 1306 Fasli and 1345 Fasli pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 8.3.2018 and the report ascertaining the limits of public land and encroachment made thereon placed before the Court is also taken on record. The Divisional Commissioner as well as District Magistrate shall ensure conclusion of proceedings against the erring officials who are involved in the forgery of record and the matter shall be apprised to the State government for appropriate action as well. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and Sri Manjeev Shukla and Sri Uday Veer Bhan Singh learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 3. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has raised mixed questions of law and facts and the point that falls for consideration is as to whether the map which allegedly was sanctioned by the Nagar Palika, Gonda in three phases on 28.1.1971, 22.12.1983 and 22.12.1986 for the construction of a building in the locality known as Dadua Bazar, Gonda is relatable to plot no. 217/1 and also as to whether the building raised by the petitioner taking shelter of the disputed maps is actually situated on the said plot or elsewhere on the public land which belongs to PWD. According to the State, the disputed building is situated on plot no. 217 which belongs to PWD and its existence which presently is affecting the road widenining scheme too is cmpletely unauthorised and the defence pleaded on the basis of sanction of map is completely misplaced. Nearly more than hundred persons are found to have indulged into the acitivity of encroachment on public land. 4. From a perusal of the report sought from the revenue authorities, it is more than clear that the petitioner owns two constructions; one situated at Dadua Bazar, Gonda and the other in Maharaniganj, which are situated on opposite side of the Gonda-Balrampur road. The construction where the hotel business is being run, the building is situated on plot no. 4. From a perusal of the report sought from the revenue authorities, it is more than clear that the petitioner owns two constructions; one situated at Dadua Bazar, Gonda and the other in Maharaniganj, which are situated on opposite side of the Gonda-Balrampur road. The construction where the hotel business is being run, the building is situated on plot no. 217 which is found to be unauthorized as per revenue record and is not traceable to the sanction of any building plan except the map relied upon by the petitioner mentioned hereinabove which relates to Dadua Bazar. Since the sanction of maps relied upon by the petitioner does not recite any plot number, as such, the construction raised on public land situated on PWD road in Maharaniganj by itself is doubtful and cannot be justified. 5. On seeking an explanation from the petitioner, it appears that the sanctioned plans on the respective dates mentioned above as contained in annexure 2 to 4 were taken aid of and that apart the entry in the revenue record of the erstwhile Raja viz. Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh of Ayodhya Estate was also set up by way of a defence to justify the construction of building upon plot no. 217/1. This building which according to the petitioner is situated on plot no. 217/1, in fact, is a building standing upon plot no. 217 according to the State and the land upon which the building is constructed belongs to Public Works Department as per the revenue record. 6. The revenue record of 1306 and 1345 Fasli placed before this Court clearly mentions the area of Khewat Khata No. 7 as 7.18 acres, which comprises of three plots i.e. plot no. 217-A/0.60 acres, 217-B/0.10 acre and plot no. 218 measuring 7.08 acres. Plot no. 217-A/0.60 acre is recorded as road whereas plot no. 217-B/0.10 acre is recorded as abadi of Railways and plot no. 218/7.08 acre is recorded as land belonging to BNW company of Railways. It may be noted that corresponding number of plot no. 217 in the revenue record was 217-Aa whereas a corresponding number of plot no. 217/1 is 217-Ba. 7. This position is established from the revenue record, which has been placed before this Court in original and any entry contrary to above is fictitious and inadmissible. 8. It may be noted that corresponding number of plot no. 217 in the revenue record was 217-Aa whereas a corresponding number of plot no. 217/1 is 217-Ba. 7. This position is established from the revenue record, which has been placed before this Court in original and any entry contrary to above is fictitious and inadmissible. 8. Having regard to the revenue records as mentioned above, the question that crops up before this Court is as to whether the construction raised by the petitioner can at all be sanctioned by the Nagar Palika upon any of the two plots i.e. 217/1 or 217. It would be a different question that if the disputed construction was raised upon plot no. 217/1 belonging to the Northern Eastern Railway, the same would not entitle the revenue authorities to take any measures for the purposes of demolition of building but insofar as the sanction of map is concerned, yet to that extent of sanction of map the competent authority can go into the dispute within the ambit of law applicable in this behalf. 9. This Court would note that the ownership upon land and sanction of map are two different aspects and the sanction of map would not confer title upon a person in whose favour the sanction is granted. 10. In the present case, it is the sanction of map of which the validity being doubtful has come to be decided by the competent authority on the basis of a proceeding, which was initiated under Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by filing three appeals i.e. Appeal Nos. 41 of 2012, 42 of 2012 and 43 of 2012 before the District Magistrate, Gonda. The three appeals filed against the sanction of maps on 28.1.1971, 22.12.1983 and 22.12.1986 were heavily barred by time for the reason that the proceedings came to be initiated nearly after 30-40 years. The appeals filed on behalf of the State before the District Magistrate, Gonda were accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein the commission of fraud was alleged against the petitioner on the ground that the sanctioned plans which the petitioner had relied upon did not make any mention of plot no. The appeals filed on behalf of the State before the District Magistrate, Gonda were accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein the commission of fraud was alleged against the petitioner on the ground that the sanctioned plans which the petitioner had relied upon did not make any mention of plot no. 217/1 and thus the justification pleaded by him in support of the construction being fraudulent was prayed to be canceled by allowing the appeal. 11. The petitioner in the present writ petition has not brought on record any material on the basis of which any objection to the delay condonation application was filed. The appeals came to be considered by the District Magistrate and all the three appeals filed by the State were rejected on 15.5.2013 observing that the same were not maintainable under Section 15(2) of the Act, inasmuch as, the said Act at the relevant point of time was not notified with respect to the disputed area. 12. Moreover, the District Magistrate, Gonda also observed that the sanction of plans with respect to the disputed area is prior in point of time to the notification of Building Regulation Act in the area, as such, the maintainability of appeal being questionable, hence the State appeals were rejected. 13. The orders passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the appeals were assailed under Section 15-A of the Act and notices were duly issued to the petitioner who participated in the proceedings. The revisions being belated were accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner did not file any objection to the application for condonation of delay in support of the revisions filed by the State and it appears that the revisions in absence of any objection seem to have been treated within time and thus the revisions were proceeded with for decision on merit. 14. It is in this backdrop that the revisional authority proceeded with the revision filed against the order passed by the District Magistrate and ultimately by means of the impugned order, the same were allowed by the judgments and orders dated 11.1.2018. The revisional authority having found the sanction of maps without authority of law has thus cancelled the maps. Hence, the present writ petition. 15. Sri Mohd. The revisional authority having found the sanction of maps without authority of law has thus cancelled the maps. Hence, the present writ petition. 15. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assailing the validity of the impugned orders has argued that the the revisional authority without passing any order on the application for condonation of delay cannot proceed with the revision on merit and thus the impugned orders passed by the revisional authority are illegal and liable to set aside. He has placed reliance upon certain decisions in support of this argument reported in 1979 ALL. L. J. 764 and [2018(138) RD 421]. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however failed to place on record any objection in response to the delay condonation application. Though, a legal plea can be entertained by this Court at any stage provided the petitioner establishes his case on merit within the four corners of law but this Court in the present case would note that fraud in law defeats any solemn defence. 17. There is serious allegation of fraud in respect of sanctioned plans. The allegation of fraud is levelled for the reason that the petitioner at the relevant point of time made an application before the sanctioning authority and that too without mentioning the plot number or any specific site other than Dadua Bazar for the purpose of raising a construction. Thus, the sanctioned plans, which are stated to be placed reliance for the purposes of justifying the imaginary construction situated on plot no. 217/1 cannot be assumed to be duly sanctioned particularly when the petitioner does not own the said land and can not own the same for it being the property of Railways. Secondly, the disputed construction is relatable to plot no. 217 which belongs to PWD department and is recorded as road. The building stands on the public road and could not be thus sanctioned. 18. This Court would note that plot no. 217 in the revenue record is the land recorded as PWD road and the petitioner does not have any title upon the said land. Hence, the sanction of map not being related to plot no. 217 and otherwise not relatable to plot no. 217/1 being it the Railways land is of no legal help to the petitioner. 19. The revisional court has proceeded on the premise that unless plot no. Hence, the sanction of map not being related to plot no. 217 and otherwise not relatable to plot no. 217/1 being it the Railways land is of no legal help to the petitioner. 19. The revisional court has proceeded on the premise that unless plot no. 217/1 or 217 belonged to the petitioner, no plan for the purposes of construction could be sanctioned in his favour. The adjoining land i.e. plot no. 217/1 since recorded in the name of Railways, thus the plea taken by the petitioner that the plans sanctioned in his favour during the year 1971, 1983 and 1986 justify the construction is latently and patently without any foundation. The plea when tested in the light of the revenue records fails for the reason that none of the said plots being public property of Railways and PWD can be owned by the petitioner or the Raja from whom ''Izzazatnama(permission) is said to have been obtained. 20. The revisional authority while testing the legality of the order passed by the District Magistrate has also dealt with the aspect as to whether the Uttar Pradesh(Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 Act, which was not notified at the relevant point of time but was notified later in the year 1993, would apply or not and it has been found that even if the said Act was notified subsequently, yet the proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act would be maintainable as per the plain language used in Section 3 of the Act, 1958. 21. For ready reference, Section 3 of the Act is produced below :- "Declaration of regulated area. - [(1)] If, in the opinion of the State Government any area within U.P. requires to be regulated under this Act with a view to the prevention of bad laying out of land, haphazard erection of buildings or growth of sub-standard colonies or with a view to the development and expansion of that area according to proper planning, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the area to be regulated area. [(2) The operation of Chapter XIII of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1958] [Sections 178, 179, 180, 180-A, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 222 of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916] (or the said Sections as extended under Section 388 thereof or under Section 38 of the U.P. Town Areas Act, 1914), Sections 29, 30 and 32 of the U.P. Town Improvement Act, 1919, or, as the case may be of Sections 162 to 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, shall in respect of a regulated area remain suspended for the period during which the declaration relating to it under sub-section (1) remains in force, and the provisions of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, shall apply in relation to such suspension as if the suspension amounted to repeal of the said enactments by this Act". 22. It may be noted that the aforesaid Act was notified in the area sometime in the year 1993. Once the aforesaid Act came into force in the year 1993, the operation of all other Acts mentioned in Section 3 of the Act became inoperative. Thus, any proceedings that would otherwise be maintainable under any of the enactments of which the operation was suspended, the remedy available under the Act of 1958 for that purpose would become available by operation of law. 23. Thus, the revisional court has rightly found that the appeals filed under Section 15(2) of the said Act were maintainable particularly when the applicability of the Act, 1958 is read in the light of Section 6 of General Clauses Act. The view taken by the revisional authority does not suffer from any infirmity and the same deserves to be upheld. 24. This Court having regard to the revenue record placed and the identity of the construction being shown to be situated on plot no. 217/0.60 decimal has no doubt that the building so raised by the petitioner is without there being any sanctioned map and the sanctioned map in three phases relied upon by the petitioner not relatable to any of the two plots i.e. 217/1 or 217 does not authorise the disputed construction. 217/0.60 decimal has no doubt that the building so raised by the petitioner is without there being any sanctioned map and the sanctioned map in three phases relied upon by the petitioner not relatable to any of the two plots i.e. 217/1 or 217 does not authorise the disputed construction. The cancellation of map by the revisional court does not call for any interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court particularly when the petitioner does not have any legal right in support of his claim insofar as plot no. 217/0.60 decimal or 217/1-0.10 decimal are concerned. Even otherwise, the sanction of map as claimed upon plot no. 217/1 is legally untenable for the reason that the said land also does not belong to any private person but the same is recorded in the name of Northern Eastern Railway. Thus, both the pleas in support of the sanctioned maps advanced by the petitioner fail. The ground of fraud alleged by the State against the petitioner being made out, this Court is left with no option but to reject all the pleas and the law would not protect the interest of a person who has transgressed upon the public land by raising a construction at his sole risk and responsibility. 25. The petitioner has also argued that the proceedings initiated against him in respect of the disputed land under Roadside Control Act, 1960 were ultimately decided in his favour by the appellate court vide order dated 5.2.1974. The appellate court order rendered on 5.2.1974 as well as the maps relied upon, fortunately mention the property situated in Dadua Bazar and not on the other side i.e. Maharaniganj and this is how the petitioner's plea stands expressed and fraud unearthed. The petitioner has thus clearly misutilized the maps and the judicial order so as to defend the unauthorized hotel construction raised by him and this act on his part speaks of a clearly designed fraud. 26. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 27. This Court has however not dealt with any other aspect except the map and identity of land with respect to the unauthorized hotel construction. The remedy available to the petitioner on any other issue remains open. 28. Insofar as the findings recorded hereinabove are concerned, the same are in relation to the sanction of maps and identity of land and construction.