ARUN TANDON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. N. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Madhyan and Sri Sharad malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Archana Tyagi and Sri P. K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, Khair Mohammad and Nek have filed first writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21012 of 2003 for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of) certiorari quashing the order dated. 29th august, 2002 passed by respondent no. 3. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect the orders dated 25. 01. 2003 and 29. 08. 2002 passed by respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively, iii. issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case. iv. Award cost of the Writ: petition to the petitioners. " ( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the propose of decision of present writ petition are as follows: ( 4 ) PROCEEDINGS under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceilings on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Act) were initiated against one Sri Allah Rakha which resulted in an order being passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 24th March, 1977 determining the ceiling limit of Sri Allah Rakha and declaring that Sri Allah Rakha had 61-14-4 bighas of land in terms of; irrigated land as surplus. Sri Allah Rakha contested the said proceedings amongst others on the ground that transfers effected by him by way of sale in favour of his daughters cannot be clubbed with the holding of Sri Allah Rakha. Against the order dated 24th March, 1977 Sri Allah Rakha filed an appeal before the District Judge, Saharanpur, which was numbered as Appeal No. 129 of 1977 (Allah Rakha v. State of U. P. ). The appeal so filed by sri Allah Rakha was allowed on 1st July, 1977 in part and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside to the extent of 2 Bigha 19 Biswa in respect of transferred land only. Against the said order of the Appellate Authority Sri Allah Rakha filed; a writ petition no. The appeal so filed by sri Allah Rakha was allowed on 1st July, 1977 in part and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside to the extent of 2 Bigha 19 Biswa in respect of transferred land only. Against the said order of the Appellate Authority Sri Allah Rakha filed; a writ petition no. 12849 of 1978 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11th May, 1978 (Reference, Page-29 of writ petition no. 21012 of 2003 ). From the record it is apparently clear that the order of this Court passed in the said writ petition was also subject matter of challenge before the Honble Supreme Court of India (reference Page-21 of the writ petition no. 21012 of 2003) and the Special Leave Petition filed in that regard was dismissed. The petitioners have deliberately not stated complete facts in the records Of writ petition, so far as the, proceedings which were completed against Sri Allah Rakha. After death of Sri Allah Rakha, the wife of Sri Allah Rakah namely, Smt. Aisha filed an application for review of the order of the appellate Court dated 1st July, 1977 in Appeal No. 7/85-86, Review application soiled by Smt. Aisha was dismissed vide order dated 20th November 1987 by the Additional Commissioner1 on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraya Begum daughters of Sri Allah Rakha, also filed review application before the District Judge. The same were also dismissed on 23rd January, 1988. ( 5 ) HIS two daughters, namely, Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suralya Begum, who were claiming themselves to be the owners of the land covered by the sale deed executed by Sri Allah rakha dated 4th July, 1971 in their favour initiated writ petition no. 1854 of 1988 (Rakeeba khatoon v. State of U. P.) and writ petition no. 1855 of 1988 (Suraiya Begum v. State of U. P. ). This Court vide order dated 22nd April, 1996 decided both the writ petitions, whereby the prescribed authority was directed ,to reconsider the objection of the aforesaid two transferees, and to decide the same by means of a speaking order. ( 6 ) SMT. Aisha @ Mangtin, wife of Sri Allah Rakha also filed writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as Civil Misc. ( 6 ) SMT. Aisha @ Mangtin, wife of Sri Allah Rakha also filed writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2092 of 1988, the writ petition so filed by smt. Aisha was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and; Order dated 12th December, 1997 with the observations that if certain objections of the petitioner are pending before the Prescribed authority, he may dispose of the same in terms of the judgment and order passed by this Court in writ petitions nos. 1854 of 1988 and 1855 of 1988. However, it was clarified that allotment proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the 1960 Act shall not be withheld on the ground of pendency of the objection by Smt. Aiasha before the Prescribed Authority. It is further apparently clear from record that during this period vide order dated 31st August, 2002 surplus, land of Sri Allah Rakha was allotted to various persons including Sri Balak Ram and Sri mahendra (who have been impleaded as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition no. 21012 of 2003) and the said allottees were put in actual possession of the land in question. ( 7 ) IN compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 12th December, 1997 the prescribed Authority decided the objections filed by all the persons, namely, (a) by Smt. Aiasha, widow of Sri Allaha Rakha, (b) by Smt. Rakeeba Khatopn and (c)by Smt. Suraiya Begum, by means of, the order dated- 29thaugust, 2002 and it was maintained that Sri Allah Rakha had 58-15-4 Bighas in terms of irrigated land as surplus, therefore, it was directed that necessary allotment of the surplus land in favour oil persons entitled to the same in accordance with the provision of Act be given effect to. ( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum filed Appeal No. 01 of 2002-03 under Section 13 of the Act before the; commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur. The appeal so filed by the aforesaid two persons was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 25th January 2003. Against the order of the Commissioner as well as against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25th january, 2003 and dated 29th August, 2002 respectively, Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum filed Civil Misc. The appeal so filed by the aforesaid two persons was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 25th January 2003. Against the order of the Commissioner as well as against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 25th january, 2003 and dated 29th August, 2002 respectively, Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5708 of 2003 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 31st January, 2003. Feeling ! ". ! aggrieved by the aforesaid order of this Court Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya begum filed special leave petition, which was numbered as Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 7314 of 2003 before the Honble Supreme Court of India. The said Special leave petition has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 5th May, 2003, which reads as follows: "heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner. No merits. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. " ( 9 ) THUS the orders of the Prescribed Authority as well as of the Commissioner dated 29th august, 2002 and dated 25th January, 2003 have attained finality upto Court. ( 10 ) SMT. Aisha wife of Sri Allah Rakha did not challenge the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 29th August, 2002 by way of appeal under Section 13 (1) of the Act and permitted the said order to become final. ( 11 ) IT is surprising that on one hand the dispute raised by Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum had been agitated and settled upto the Honble Supreme Court parallel proceedings were initiated by Uzair Mohd. and Khair Mohammad, the husbands of Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum respectively, by way of writ petition no. 21012 of 2003 and petition no. 23337 of 2003 for quashing the order of Prescribed Authority dated 29th august, 2002 and of the Commissioner dated 25th January, 2003. ( 12 ) THE other facts, which present a shocking picture before this Court, and establish manifest abuse of the process of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the present writ petitioners are as follows: (a) Smt. Aisha @ Mangati who had filed Writ Petition No. 2092 of 1988, expired) in the year 1995. ( 12 ) THE other facts, which present a shocking picture before this Court, and establish manifest abuse of the process of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the present writ petitioners are as follows: (a) Smt. Aisha @ Mangati who had filed Writ Petition No. 2092 of 1988, expired) in the year 1995. The petitioners claim themselves to be the legal heirs of Smt. Aisha @ Mangatin on the basis of a will deed said to have been executed in favour of petitioners, namely Uzair Mohd. and khair Mohd. , who are admittedly son-in-laws of Smt. Aisha, and husband of Smt. Rakeeba khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum. The daughters and their husbands did not disclose before this court at the time of decision of the writ petition on 12th December, 1997 that Smt. Aisha has expired, nor any substitution application was filed. (b)After writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the objections of the aforesaid Smt. Aisha. The present petitioners Sri Uzair Mohd. and Khair Mohd. representing Smt. | Aisha on the basis of will started contesting the before the Prescribed authority again. The Prescribed Authority decided the objections :sri Uzair Mohammad and Khair Mohammad by means of the order dated 29th August, 2002 along with the objections of Smt. Rakeeba khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum by means of a common order. (d) The wives of the petitioners, namely Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begurn preferred an appeal under Section 13 of the Act. (e) The present petitioners, son-in-laws of Smt. Aisha),did hot file any appeal. However, after their wives lost before the Commissioner and filed Writ petiition in this Court the present petitioners also filed separate writ petitions before this Court. (f) The husbands (son-in-laws of Smt. Aisha) who did not challenge the order of the prescribed authority before the Commissioner by way of appeal under Section 13 of the Act, misled this court by challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 25th January,. 2003, which was passed on an appeal filed by their wives, namely Rakeeba Khatoon and Suraiya Begum and prayed for quashing of the said order by means of the present writ petition, although admittedly they did not file the appeal, which has gave arise to the order dated 25th January, 2003. (g) The Writ petition no. 2003, which was passed on an appeal filed by their wives, namely Rakeeba Khatoon and Suraiya Begum and prayed for quashing of the said order by means of the present writ petition, although admittedly they did not file the appeal, which has gave arise to the order dated 25th January, 2003. (g) The Writ petition no. 21012 of 2003 and12333 of 2003 are completely silent about the fact that the petitioners (son-in-laws of Smt. Aisha) had not filed any appeal before the commissioner and further that the order dated 25th January, was on a appeal filed by their wives in their independent rights. (h) However, the writ petitioners made a prayer; for quashing the order dated 25th January, 2003 passed by the Commissioned without disclosing the material facts only to avoid the objection of the Court of having not availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal at the time of admission of the writ petition. (i) Petitioners succeeded in their effect and as result whereof obtained ah interim order from this court. As already noticed above, the orders of Prescribed Authority and that of the Commissioner, dated 29th August, 2002 and dated 25th January, 2003 respectively had been challenged before this Court by means of writ petition no. 5708 of 2003, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31stjanuary, 2003. Against the said order of this Court, an special leave petition was filed and the same has also been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, the legality of the orders impugned in the present writ petition no. 21012 of 2003 cannot be re-opened on the asking of the petitioners. ( 13 ) NOW coming to the writ petition no. 25467 of 2003, which has been filed by Smt. Rakeeba khatoon for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, Khatoon for the following reliefs: order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from Gata No. 902,1155, 1196, 1197, 1198 and 1495 except in accordance with law. (b) Issue such other; and further writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case. (c) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. (b) Issue such other; and further writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case. (c) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. ( 14 ) IT is contended that the petitioners are in possession of the and in question and the surplus land declared in respect pf ceiling limits of Sri Allah Rakha, has been satisfied by other land accquireq by the State. ( 15 ) IN the said writ petition except for referring to passed in writ petition nos. 1854 of 1988 and 1855 of 1988 the petitioner has deliberately concealed all the proceedings, which have taken place earlier including the proceedings which become final in respect ,of land holding of Sri allah Rakha and again an effort was made to challenge the legality of the order passed by the prescribed Authority including the land transferred in favour of Smt. Rakeeba Khaton and Smt. Suraiya Begum by Sri Allah Rakha on the ground that the Sale-deeds were not void and therefore the order passed by the Prescribed Authority providing for calculation of land as surplus was contrary to the original order dated 29th August, 2002. In the said writ petition also the on of the order of petitioner has deliberately not made mentioon of the allotment, which was made in favour of allottees dated 31st August, 2002 nor any relief for quashing of the said order has been prayed. The petitioner have conveniently prayed for only a writ of mandamus to the effect that they may not be dispossessed from the plots in question. ( 16 ) IN the opinion of the Court the writ petition is not bnly based on concealment of facts but also obstruct the allotment order issued as early as on 31st August 2002 without challenging the said order as well as without impleading the allottees. The Court is satisfied that; the aforesaid action of the petitioner is only an attempt to illegally recover the possession over the land declared surplus, as such petitioner deserve to be dealt with harshly. The writ petition no. 25467 of 2003 as filed by Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon, as such cannot entertained by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition no. 25467 of 2003 as filed by Smt. Rakeeba Khatoon, as such cannot entertained by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 17 ) IT is thus clear that there is deliberate attempt on the part of the two daughters of Sri Allah rakha, namely, Smt. Rakeebb Khatoon and Smt. Suraiya Begum and their husbands to somehow or other continue in possession of the; land, which been declared as surplus after the ceiling limits of Sri Allah Rakha had been determined in accordance with the Act. ( 18 ) IN the opinion of the Court the conduct of the petitioners is highly unsatisfactory and amounts to interference in the administration of justice and as such is criminal contempt of court. [reference; AIR 1995 SC 1795 (Dhananjay Shah v. State of Haryana and Ors.), 1996 (1) J. T. (Afzal and Anr. v. State of U. P. Haryana and Ors.) and 1996 (8) J. T. 550 (All India state Bank of Officers Federation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hand. It is also now established that the petitioners have made an attempt to somehow or the other retain the possession over the land declared surplus as early in the year 1978, by resorting to various writ petitions. Therefore, they Should be made to compensate for illegal benefits which they have obtained because of uncalled for litigation and abuse of process of Court for more than , two decades thereby continuing to remain in cultivatory possession of more than 58-15-4 Bighas of surplus land. ( 19 ) IN view of the aforesaid all the writ petitions being writ petition nos. 21012 of 2003, 23337 of 2003 land 25467 of 2003 are dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners, namely, Uzair Mohd. , Sri Knair Mohd. And Rakeeba Khatoon, within four month from today. The money shall be deposited though bank draft With the Legal Services of the allahabad High Court In case of default the District Magistrate, Saharanpur shall ensure the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and shall submit a report in that regard within a further period of two weeks before the Registrar General of this Court. The money shall be deposited though bank draft With the Legal Services of the allahabad High Court In case of default the District Magistrate, Saharanpur shall ensure the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and shall submit a report in that regard within a further period of two weeks before the Registrar General of this Court. ( 20 ) IT is made dear that the petitioner as well persons shall not interfere allotment of the surplus land with the peaceful possession in any manner. . .