JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated against the petitioner. The issue of determination of the ceiling limits of the petitioner was concluded in the appeal filed by the State Government under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 being Appeal No. 14/2003-04. The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut vide order dated 17th November, 2004 and it was recorded that after granting benefit of reduction in area qua land to be earmarked in favour of adult son to the extent of 8 bighas as well as after deduction of the land said to be covered by Bag, the total surplus land available to the petitioner would come to 4-8-15 acres. The Commissioner after recording such finding, remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to exercise his option in respect of the surplus land to be taken possession of by the District Magistrate. 3. There is nothing on record to establish that the order of the Commissioner dated 17th November, 2004 was ever challenged by the petitioner any further, therefore, the ceiling limits determined under the said order have became final. The Prescribed Authority in accordance with the directions issued by the Commissioner under order dated 17th November, 2004, afforded opportunity to the petitioner to express his choice in respect of land to be taken possession of by the District Magistrate as surplus. After reply was filed by the petitioner, the matter was concluded under the order dated 28th December, 2004. Order dated 28th December, 2004 only decides the issue of choice of the land between the parties. 4. This Court may again record that the issue qua ceiling limits of the petitioner stood closed with the passing of the order dated 17th November, 2004. 5. Against the order of the Additional Collector/Prescribed Authority dated 28th December, 2004, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 before the Commissioner. The appeal was barred by limitation and therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Application under Section 5 was rejected vide order dated 28th July, 2006. The appeal was barred by limitation and therefore, petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Application under Section 5 was rejected vide order dated 28th July, 2006. He therefore, approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49311 of 2006. The writ petition was allowed vide judgement and order dated 8th September, 2006. The order of the Commissioner was quashed and he was directed to consider and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Under the impugned order the Commissioner has decided the appeal filed by the petitioner by means of the order dated 9th July, 2007. Against the “order of the Commissioner dated 9th July, 2007 and the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 28th December, 2004 this petition has been filed. 6. In the present writ petition there is also no challenge to the order of the Commissioner dated 17th November, 2004 whereby the ceiling limits of the petitioner were determined finally. 7. In order to mislead the Court, learned Counsel for the petitioner opened his submission by an statement that the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 8th September, 2007 have not been complied with by the Commissioner, he has only adjudicated upon the issues of choice without entering into the merits of the ceiling limits to be determined. Effort was made to take the Court through the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 8th September, 2006 referred to above, for the purposes of alleging that the entire despite qua the ceiling limits of the petitioner were reopened under the judgment and order of this Court. 8. After examination of the records this Court has noticed that the proceedings qua ceiling limits of the petitioner stood closed under order of the Commissioner dated 17th November, 2004. The order was never challenged before this Court nor any recall or review application was ever filed. The issue of surplus area with the petitioner had become final and the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was incorrect. The order was never challenged before this Court nor any recall or review application was ever filed. The issue of surplus area with the petitioner had become final and the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was incorrect. This Court, therefore, specifically required to the Counsel to consider as to whether he still stands on the first statement qua the issue of determination of surplus area (ceiling limits) being reopened under the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 8th September, 2006. The learned Counsel with all vehemence at his command reiterated the statement made early. He again stated that under order of this Court dated 8th September, 2006, the issue qua the ceiling limits (surplus land) stood reopened because of the direction for decision of the appeal of the petitioner on merits. 9. As already noticed above, the appeal which was dismissed as barred by limitation, by the Commissioner vide order dated 28th July, 2006, was directed against the order of the Additional Collector dated 28th December, 2004 only which infact decided the issue of choice only. The order of this Court dated 8th September, 2006 only required the said appeal to be decided on merits. The issue of surplus area (ceiling limits) was not reopened nor was subject matter of the writ petition. 10. It is, therefore, held that an attempt has been made to mislead the Court by making deliberate false statement of facts by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in these circumstances. 11. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ————