ANIL KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents prohibiting them from preventing the petitioners to use a pathway, which is a public pathway for removal of the sand either by motor vehicles or motor trucks or otherwise on the ground that the respondents are preventing the petitioners from using the pathway on the banks of river Yamuna where the petitioners were given lease for excavation of sand for a period of two years. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversy are that petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of petitioner No. 1, who was granted leasehold rights by respondent No. 3 for removal of sand from the land comprised in Khasra No. 323 on the bed of river Yamuna at Okhla for a period of two years w. e. f. 21. 11. 1976. The period of lease for excavation of sand expired on 20. 11. 1978. The land for which the lease was granted though falls within the Union Territory of Delhi, however, it vests with the Government of Uttar Pradesh and consequently, the lease for two years was granted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. ( 3 ) SINCE the land falls within the Union Territory of Delhi, the permits were obtained by the petitioners from the Collector of Mines and Quarries for the purpose of removal of sand from the bed of river Yamuna in accordance with Delhi Mines and Mineral Rules. ( 4 ) THE petitioners asserted that major portion of the sand quarried during the subsistence of lease was sold by way of out-right sale and other stocks were stored by the petitioners on certain other pieces of land, which were obtained on rent from the owners and occupants thereof. The petitioners pleaded that petitioners No. 1 also took on rent Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 in Village Okhla for storing the sand from Deepak Sakuja and Rupak Sakuja son and daughter of Late Mr. P. C. Sakuja resident of 5 Jain Mandir Road, New Delhi. On expiry of lease, a substantial quantity of sand belonging to the petitioners, which was excavated during the subsistence of lease was stored on the said Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 and in respect of the said sand, royalty had been charged and paid to the Collector of Mines and Quarries. On expiry of lease, a substantial quantity of sand belonging to the petitioners, which was excavated during the subsistence of lease was stored on the said Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 and in respect of the said sand, royalty had been charged and paid to the Collector of Mines and Quarries. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners, there is a public pathway (road), which connects the main road of the village Okhla with the numerous fields and farms of the village situated on the eastern side of Agra Canal, which pathway has been in existence and use from time immemorial. The access of the main road of Okhla to the fields and farms and the land situated on the one side of Agra Canal is only by the said public pathway and the said passage has always been unrestricted and unfettered. ( 6 ) IN 18th century, a canal known as Agra Canal was constructed which passes over Khasra Nos. 276 and 207 and a bridge was also constructed over the canal as the canal cuts across the public highway. A police chowki is also beyond the bridge and a canal department is also situated on the eastern side of the canal and the access to the said department is also through the said public pathway and the bridge. According to the petitioners, members of public, owners of the fields, farms, houses and other property holders have a right to pass and re-pass on the said public pathway and bridge without let or hindrance in all seasons of the year freely and at their option. ( 7 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that on account of another auction, which was held in November, 1978 where the highest bid was given by respondent No. 6, the officials of State of U. P. and respondent No. 6 have started preventing the petitioners from disposing of their stored stock of sand. Despite various attempts by the petitioners to remove the said stock of sand belonging to them, they are unable to use the said pathway and have been prevented from removing the sand from the path. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a prohibition against the respondents from preventing them to use the said pathway. Despite various attempts by the petitioners to remove the said stock of sand belonging to them, they are unable to use the said pathway and have been prevented from removing the sand from the path. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a prohibition against the respondents from preventing them to use the said pathway. ( 8 ) THE terms and conditions of the lease under which the petitioners had excavated the sand, have categorically stipulated that the sand will be dug and removed from the bed of river Yamuna in between Spur No. 1 and 9 right marginal Bund at Okhla and the bank of river. The left bank was defined as a line perpendicular to the crest line of the weir at its north eastern end. Condition No. 2 specifically laid down that no sand shall be dug or removed from within 50 ft. of the right bank of river and 100 ft. from the spur and pucca works. ( 9 ) WHEN the petition was filed, an application for interim relief, CM 1660/79 was also filed and by an order dated 4. 6. 1979, the respondents were restrained from obstructing the petitioner to quarry sand lying at Village Okhla in Khasra numbers mentioned in para-6 of the petition by any means of transport from the place where the sand is lying through pathway. It was clarified that the path in question lies in Khasra Nos. 274, 276 and 315 of the Village Okhla and also over the bridge. ( 10 ) THE order dated 4. 6. 1979, which was passed in CM 1660/79 was subsequently suspended by another order dated 27. 6. 1979 on another CM 1807/79, filed by respondent No. 6 was passed. ( 11 ) THE application being CM 1660/79 and CM 1807/79 were disposed off by the order dated 13. 9. 1979 whereby CM 1660/79 filed by the petitioners was partly allowed and CM 1807/79 filed by respondent No. 6 was dismissed. By the said interim order, the respondents were restrained from obstructing the petitioners in removal of sand belonging to the petitioners and stock stacked and stored in Khasra numbers mentioned in para-6 of the petition except Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 by using the public pathway and the petitioners were allowed to remove the sand within one month. By the said interim order, the respondents were restrained from obstructing the petitioners in removal of sand belonging to the petitioners and stock stacked and stored in Khasra numbers mentioned in para-6 of the petition except Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 by using the public pathway and the petitioners were allowed to remove the sand within one month. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the dispute which has remained for adjudication is whether the petitioners are entitled to remove the sand from Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 by using the public pathways. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is contested by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, who filed an affidavit of N. P. Jain, Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)/officer In charge, Mines and Minerals of District Ghaziabad. The respondents contended that Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 are the property of State of Uttar Pradesh and the petitioners have no right to remove or to store the stocks of sand on the said two khasras. It was asserted that the petitioners after 20. 9. 1979 had no right to store the sand on the said khasras numbers and they were bound to dispose off the stocks within the tenure of the lease granted to the petitioners. Reliance was also placed on the fact that after 20. 11. 1978, a fresh auction was made in which respondent No. 6 was the highest bidder. ( 14 ) RESPONDENT No. 6 also contested the claim of the petitioner contending categorically that the terms and condition of auction dated 28. 8. 1976 are binding on the petitioner and the U. P. Government and any quantity of sand lying on the canal after the expiry of the lease period has become the property of the State Government. Since the lease of the petitioner expired on 20. 11. 1978, the sand excavated by the petitioners which was not removed by them became the property of the State Government. Respondent No. 6 also emphasized that Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 belong to the State Government as the lands in the said khasra numbers are canal land and are not private lands and belongs to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. ( 15 ) RESPONDENT No. 6 also emphasized that Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 fall in between Spur No. 2, 3 and 4 and Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 belong to the State Government as the lands in the said khasra numbers are canal land and are not private lands and belongs to the Government of Uttar Pradesh. ( 15 ) RESPONDENT No. 6 also emphasized that Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 fall in between Spur No. 2, 3 and 4 and Khasra Nos. 318, 319, 320, 321 and 323 are in between Spur No. 1, 3 to 5. The spur is the wall which protects the flow of water on the canal land and further in the abadi area. According to the said respondent, spurs were constructed by the Irrigation Department for the purposes of protecting the land from merging into river and spur protects the canal land, which is on the bank of river. Relying on the terms of auction, respondent No. 6 asserted that the spurs have to be protected and deep digging could only be done in compliance with the restrictions placed in digging near the spur. Regarding the pathway, it was asserted by respondent No. 6 that the pathway and even the canal land could not be used by any person other than respondent No. 6, who was a subsequent lessee. It was contended that Khasra No. 315 was not leased out to the petitioner nor is it a private property. Merely because the sand excavated by the petitioner was allegedly lying on Khasra Nos. 315 and 316, it was asserted that the same could not be removed in view of the specific conditions stipulated in Conditions and Specifications of Auction for 1976-78. The relevant clauses are as under:-1. Sand will be dug and removed from the bed of river Yamuna in between spur No. 1 and 9 right a marginal bund at okhla and the bank of river. The left bank in this case is defined as a line perpendicular to the crest line of the weir at its north eastern end. 2. No sand shall be dug or removed from within 50 ft. of right bank of the river and 100 ft. from the spur and pucca works. 3. Any quantity of sand lying in the canal land after the expiry of this agreement will become the property of the State Government. 4. No sand shall be removed from field No. 315, 319, 322 of village Okhla and No. 474 of village Jasola. of right bank of the river and 100 ft. from the spur and pucca works. 3. Any quantity of sand lying in the canal land after the expiry of this agreement will become the property of the State Government. 4. No sand shall be removed from field No. 315, 319, 322 of village Okhla and No. 474 of village Jasola. ( 16 ) THE petitioners refuted averments made by the respondents and filed the rejoinder-affidavit of Shri Nimatullah, son of Haji Barkatullah. Along with the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioners filed a copy of the receipt in respect of Khasra Nos. 315 and 316. The receipt for Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 filed by the petitioners is as under:-"received Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve thousand only) on account of rent of Khasra No. 315 and 316 of Village Okhla, Delhi near Spur No. 2 of Right Marginal Bund at Okhla measuring about 25 bighas to stock Jamuna sand over the said land from M/s Doon Construction Co. of 3-A Nizamuddin (West) N. Delhi. Jamuna bank Contractor at Okhla for the period of 2 years from 1. 7. 76 to 30. 6. 78. "dated 12. 12. 78 sd/- 12. 12. 78 deepak Sakuja sd/-Rupak Sakuja deepak Sakuja and Rupak Sakuja for themselves and on behalf of Mrs. Anita Kapila and Miss Chander Sakuja sons and daughters of late Sh. P. C. Sakuja R/o 5 Jain Mandir Raod, New Delhi. ( 17 ) THE petitioners also filed a copy of the suit filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society for recovery of possession of land and mesne profits. Along with the plaint, a copy of the Schedule-A was filed, which showed that Khasra No. 316 (25-100) was leased to the said Society and Khasra No. 315 having an area of 50 bighas 4 biswa, as shown in Schedule-B was an extra area occupied by the Society out of which the Society had possession of 45 bighas and 16 biswa. ( 18 ) A copy of the plan was also filed showing Khasra nos. 315 and 316 between the spur nos. 2, 3 and 4. A portion of the plan filed is as under: i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and have perused the petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder and the documents filed by the parties. 315 and 316 between the spur nos. 2, 3 and 4. A portion of the plan filed is as under: i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and have perused the petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder and the documents filed by the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that pursuant to interim order dated 13. 9. 1979 restraining the respondents from obstructing the petitioners in removing the sand belonging to petitioner in various khasra numbers except Khasra Nos. 315 and 316, the point for determination left is whether the petitioners are entitled to remove sand from Khasra Nos. 315 and 316. ( 19 ) THE petitioners have claimed rights as lessee in Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 on the basis of alleged lease created in favor of petitioners by Sh. Deepak and Sh. Rupak on the basis of an alleged receipt dated 12. 2. 1978 executed by the said lessors in favor of petitioners for a sum of Rs. 12,000/- for a period of 2 years from 1. 7. 1976 to 30. 6. 1978. ( 20 ) THE plea of the petitioner is that the Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 were let out by the State of U. P to Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society who had further sub let, leased, the different areas to different persons. In the circumstances the plea of the petitioner is that Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 were taken on rent by the petitioners firm from the Sakhujas and consequently they are entitled to remove the sand stacked by them on those khasras. ( 21 ) ATTENTION has also been drawn to a suit for recovery of possession filed against the Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the suit for possession was decreed and a decree of possession has been confirmed and the proceedings for recovery of possession are pending. ( 22 ) A copy of the plaint has been filed by the petitioner. Along with the plaint the copies of Schedule A and Schedule B are filed. Schedule A discloses the Khasra Numbers of the land which were leased to Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society and Schedule B reflects the details of those lands, the extra area, occupied by the said society, however, those lands were not leased to the said society. Along with the plaint the copies of Schedule A and Schedule B are filed. Schedule A discloses the Khasra Numbers of the land which were leased to Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society and Schedule B reflects the details of those lands, the extra area, occupied by the said society, however, those lands were not leased to the said society. Perusal of these schedules reveal that whereas Khasra No. 316 was leased to Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society but the khasra No. 315 was not leased to the said society. The petitioners have not filed any document to show that Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society had created the rights in favor of Sakhujas who could have further assigned the rights in favor of petitioners. Even if Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society had the possession of Khasra No. 315 as a lessee and as an authorized occupant, there is nothing to show that the possession of these two khasra Numbers were given by the said society to the Sakhujas from whom the petitioners allegedly had taken the same on rent for a period of two years from 1. 7. 1976 to 30. 6. 1978. The petitioners have also not produced anything to show that even after 30th June, 1978 the alleged lease created in their favor persisted and still subsits. ( 23 ) ON behalf of the petitioner a statement of account of Yamuna sand removed from khasra numbers as mentioned in the order dated 13. 9. 1979 has been filed for the period 19. 11. 1979 to 26. 11. 1979. Besides the copy of this statement of account, no other accounts have been filed by the petitioner to show that the sand was removed by the petitioner from the khasra numbers which were leased to the petitioner and the same was stacked by the petitioner on the said khasra numbers 315 and 316. ( 24 ) THE relevant portion of the plan which has been reproduced hereinabove shows that khasra No. 315 lies within the spur No. 2 and spur No. 3 and khasra No. 316 lies partly within spur no. 2 and 3 and partly within spur Nos. 3 and 4. ( 24 ) THE relevant portion of the plan which has been reproduced hereinabove shows that khasra No. 315 lies within the spur No. 2 and spur No. 3 and khasra No. 316 lies partly within spur no. 2 and 3 and partly within spur Nos. 3 and 4. ( 25 ) THE petitioners have not been able to establish that the said khasras were leased by Delhi Peasants Cooperative Multi Purpose Society to Sakhujas and consequently on what terms and conditions the petitioners have the possession of the said khasras. Since the petitioners have not established the rights of Sakhujas they can not contend that the lease could be created by Sakhujas in their favor or that the Sakhujas were entitled to assign alleged rights in their favor to the petitioners. Even if it is presumed that the Sakhujas had rights in said khasra nos. 315 and 316 which could be assigned by them to the petitioners but even then they could not have better rights then the rights of the society. The petitioners have also not produced the lease deed executed in favor of the society to show as to what were the rights of the society in the lands which were leased to the society. Admittedly only Khasra no. 316 was leased to society and part of land in khasra no. 315 was un-authorizedly occupied by the said society. If the society could not remove the sand after the expiry of its lease, the sub lessee and his assignee could also not remove the sand from the lands which were released to the society. The inevitable inference in the facts and circumstances is that the petitioners have failed to establish as to what are their rights in the said khasra nos. The proposition that possession of the open land is with the person who has some right in the said open land, cannot be disputed. Khasra nos. 315 and 316 are open land. The petitioners have failed to establish that they have any rights in the said land. If the petitioners have failed to establish that they have any rights in the said land, a fortiori they do not have the possession of the said land also. If the petitioners do not have the possession of the said land, they cannot contend that the sand lying there belongs to them. If the petitioners have failed to establish that they have any rights in the said land, a fortiori they do not have the possession of the said land also. If the petitioners do not have the possession of the said land, they cannot contend that the sand lying there belongs to them. The petitioners have also failed to produce any documents that sand was excavated by them by paying royalty which was later on stored by them on the said land. The logical consequence of this will be that neither the petitioners have the possession of said land nor the sand, if any, lying there is owned by them. ( 26 ) IF that be so the petitioners cannot claim that they have rights to remove the sand if stacked by them under an alleged lease created in their favour by Sakhujas. Since the lease was created by the State of U. P in favor of Delhi Peasants Society and other persons and if the terms and conditions of the petitioners' lease for other khasra numbers is considered, the sand could not be dug and removed from the bed of the river between spurs within 50 feet of right bank of river and 100 feet from the spur and pucca works. If that be so even the petitioners who is alleged to have got the said khasra numbers from Sakhujas were not entitled to dug and remove the sand from the bed of river Yamuna from Khasra Numbers 315 and 316 as they lie between spur Nos. 2 to 4. ( 27 ) THE condition and the term of lease of the petitioner is that any quantity of sand lying in the canal land after expiry of agreement would become the property of the State Government, therefore, in case there was a lease in favor of Sakhujas, which has not been established by the petitioners, the petitioners the alleged lessee of Sakhujas would also become liable not to remove any sand lying on the said khasras after the expiry of their lease. This is not the case of the petitioners that the alleged lease in favor of petitioners in respect of Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 is still subsisting and, therefore, being the lessee of the Sakhujas, the petitioners are entitled to remove the sand allegedly stacked by them on the said khasra numbers. This is not the case of the petitioners that the alleged lease in favor of petitioners in respect of Khasra Nos. 315 and 316 is still subsisting and, therefore, being the lessee of the Sakhujas, the petitioners are entitled to remove the sand allegedly stacked by them on the said khasra numbers. If the rights of the Sakhujas have not been established the petitioners can not claim rights in the said lands on the basis of alleged receipt dated 12. 12. 1978. ( 28 ) IN the facts and circumstances taking it in any manner the petitioners have failed to establish that there was any alleged lease in favor of said Sakhujas from whom the alleged lease was created in favor of petitioners nor the petitioners have been able to establish that the sand was stacked by them on these khasra numbers. The petitioners have failed to establish that they are in possession of those khasra numbers and the alleged sand lying there was stacked by them and is owned by them. The petitioners have also failed to establish that despite specific stipulation in the lease that the sand would not be removed from the khasras lying between the spurs of the eastern they are entitled to remove the sand after the expiry of the lease. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to remove any alleged sand alleged to have been stacked by them at khasra Nos. 315 and 316. ( 29 ) THEREFORE, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the case of the respondents in preventing the petitioners to remove any sand from the khasra Nos. 315 and 316 in any manner nor any such procedural unreasonableness can be inferred so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents. The petitioners have failed to establish any rights in said khasra nos. and that they are in possession of the petitioners and the sand, if any, lying there is owned by them and had been stacked by them after excavating it from the area leased to them after paying royalty. The petitioners have failed to establish their rights and they are not entitled for any relief. ( 30 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and is hereby dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances the parties are left to bear their own cost.