( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition was dismissed in default on 28. 1. 1983. Thereafter restoration application was filed on 18. 3. 1993. On 20. 11. 2006 when the above noted restoration application was listed, no one appeared for either of the parties, however, under confusion instead of dismissing the restoration application, I passed the order of dismissal of default on the writ petition. Thereafter application for recall of order dated 20. 11. 2006 was filed which was allowed on 24. 1. 2007, however, on the said date also under some confusion order was passed that order dated 20. 11. 2006 dismissing the writ petition in default is set-aside. Thereafter on 24. 1. 2007, arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the merit of the writ petition were also heard. ( 3 ) CAUSE shown in the restoration application dated 18. 3. 1993 is sufficient. Accordingly said application is allowed and order dated 28. 1. 1983, dismissing the writ petition in default is also set-aside. ( 4 ) AS far as merit of the writ petition is concerned, this writ petition is directed against orders dated 28. 12. 1978 and 18. 9. 1980. First order was passed in case No. 8 (Ceiling Act) State Versus Panchayati Gaushala, Hapur by prescribed authority Ceiling /sdo Hapur district Ghaziabad. Against the said order, Revenue Appeal No. 6 of 1979 was filed which was allowed in part on 18. 9. 1980 by I Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad. The prescribed authority had held that petitioner possessed 131 Bigha irrigated land as surplus land. However, appellate court reduced that area and held that petitioner possessed 69 Bigha and odd land in terms of irrigated land as surplus land. ( 5 ) UNDER section 6 (1) (9), it is provided that land held before 8. 6. 1973 by a Gaushala of a public nature registered under U. P Gaushala Adhiniyam 1964 shall be exempted from U. P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 to the extent prescribed. Before the appellate court only two points were argued one was regarding nature of land of a particular plot. Petitioner had asserted that it was user but appellate court held that no evidence was led to prove the said assertion. Before the appellate court only two points were argued one was regarding nature of land of a particular plot. Petitioner had asserted that it was user but appellate court held that no evidence was led to prove the said assertion. The other point argued was regarding number of cattle head in the Gaushala in question on crucial date i. e. 8. 6. 1973. ( 6 ) IN this writ petition before me only the second point was argued i. e. regarding number of cattle heads on the crucial date. Under the ceiling Act, one hectare extra land for every 10 cattle heads is permissible. Rule 4 (5) of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Act provides as under : "land held by Gaushala referred to in clause (g) of section 6 shall be exempted in that clause to the extent of one hectare of irrigated land for every 10 heads of cattle including calves maintained by the Gaushala concerned. " ( 7 ) THE petitioner maintains two Gaushalas one at Hapur and the other at Mirzapur. Prescribed authority as well as appellate court categorically found that entries of number of cattles at Hapur were forged in the registers and contained alteration. Appellate court also mentioned that "a casual perusal of the register of June 1993 is sufficient to show that the entries have been changed and forgery has been committed. The figure of 200 has been added to the number of cows and the detail has been altered in this manner. " ( 8 ) APPELLATE court fully agreed with the number of the cattle heads found by the prescribed authority to be present in the Gaushala in question on 8. 6. 1973. However,, there was a calculation mistake in the order of the prescribed authority which was corrected by the appellate court. Further, the prescribed authority had not allowed 7. 3 hectares land which is permissible to be retained by every tenure holder. This mistake was also corrected by the appellate court. ( 9 ) AS clear cut finding of forgery and manipulation was recorded by both the courts below after perusing the original records hence no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even photocopies of the registers which were filed before the court below have not been annexed alongwith the writ petition. ( 9 ) AS clear cut finding of forgery and manipulation was recorded by both the courts below after perusing the original records hence no interference is called for in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even photocopies of the registers which were filed before the court below have not been annexed alongwith the writ petition. ( 10 ) FIRSTLY I do not find least error in the impugned findings, secondly a person who has committed forgery and manipulation is not entitled to the discretionary relief of writ petition. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. .