JUDGMENT 1. The appellants, being aggrieved by the order dated 25th August 2004 passed in W.P.Nos.33888-91/2004 and to allow the said writ petitions, have presented these writ appeals. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are that, the 5th respondent herein had filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.9836/1995 and the said writ petition had been disposed of by this Court on 5th February 1997. Assailing the correctness of the said order, 5th respondent had filed a Writ Appeal before this Court in W.A.No.4663/1997 and the said writ appeal had been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 1st April 1999 with a direction to the Forest Department to verify and find out as to whether the land in question granted/regularised in favour of the appellants herein by the Regularization Committee is the forest land or not and if it is not a forest land, then there is no necessity of cancellation of the grant and liberty has been reserved to the Forest Department to take action in accordance with law. In compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and in the light of the communication forwarded by the Forest Department to the jurisdictional authority, 2nd respondent herein has initiated the proceedings and issued show cause notice to the appellants as to why their grant cannot be cancelled under section 94A read with 108 (K) of the Land Grant Rules, and calling upon them to produce the regularization order in favour of them vide Annexure-J dated 28.8.1999. In pursuance of the said notice, all these appellants have filed their objections vide Annexure-K. The second respondent, after hearing both the parties and after considering the material available on record, has cancelled the grant made in favour of these appellants in respect of Sy.No.11/1 measuring 17 acres 220 guntas, situate at Chavanagudda village, holding that their holdings are more than their eligibility and therefore, they are not entitled for regularization of agricultural land, by its order dated 22.10.2001 vide Annexure-L. Assailing the corrections of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, all these appellants have filed an appeal before the 4th respondent. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the 4th respondent on 3.7.2004. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the 4th respondent on 3.7.2004. The 4th respondent in turn, after hearing both the parties, after going through the order passed by the 2nd respondent and after careful perusal of the material available on record and the directions issued by this court, has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the respondents-2 and 4, as referred above, all these appellants have filed W.P.Nos.33888 to 33891/2004 before this Court. The said writ petitions have been dismissed on merits, by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28th August 2004. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, these appellants felt necessitated to present these writ appeals. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents-1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for 5th respondent at considerable length of time. 4. After careful perusal of the original records made available by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents-1 to 4 at thredbare, it emerges that, a proceeding was initiated by the 2nd respondent against these appellants, in the light of the communication sent by the jurisdictional officer of the Forest Department, on the basis of the complaint given by the 5th respondent and the report submitted by the Tahsildar in consonance with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court as referred above, under section 94-A read with section 108(K) of the Land Grant Rules, after issuing notice to them. The appellants, in turn, have filed their objections. The 2nd respondent, after considering all the material available on record, has recorded a finding stating that, all these appellants are holding lands beyond their entitlement i.e. more than 2 hectares of lands and therefore, they are not entitled to seek regularization of the land in question. Specifically, the 2nd respondent has recorded a finding that the said land has been granted or regularized by the Regularization Committee, without taking prior permission from the jurisdictional authority of the Forest department. Specifically, the 2nd respondent has recorded a finding that the said land has been granted or regularized by the Regularization Committee, without taking prior permission from the jurisdictional authority of the Forest department. After critical evaluation of the records available on file, in fact, these appellants-2 to 4 are already holding their lands as it emerges from the records of rights and certificate issued by the Village Accountant which are available in the original records at ink page No.280 to 335 and so far as the first appellant is concerned, there is a report submitted by the Tahsildar and the same is available in records at ink page No.265 dated 16.7.2001, wherein, it is specifically stated that, the family of the first appellant is holding 12 acres 10 guntas of land in Gamanagatti village and the village Chavaragudda is situated 20 KMs away from Hubli and he has produced the records of right of the joint family members of the first appellant along with the report of the Village Accountant of Gamanagatti village and all these relevant vital documents which are available on record establish beyond reasonable doubt that all these appellants are already holding lands. This vital information has been intentionally and deliberately suppressed by the appellants before filing their application seeking regularization of their unauthorized cultivation in respect of the land in question, that too, when the said land is in forest area. When the appellants are redressing their grievance seeking the relief before the appellate authority, they must approach the appellate authority with clean hands and state the true facts. Admittedly, in the instant case, after microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file which has been produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents-1 to 4 as referred above, these appellants have intentionally and deliberately suppressed the materials available on record and on account of committing fraud and obtaining an order from the regularization committee, the same has been rightly set aside by the 2nd respondent, after conducting thorough enquiry and after going through the relevant material available on file and the same has been confirmed by the fourth respondent and also by this Court. 5. In this regard, it is significant to note that, the Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalraya Naldu, dead by LRs Vs. 5. In this regard, it is significant to note that, the Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Chengalraya Naldu, dead by LRs Vs. Jagannath dead by LRs and others reported in AIR 1994 SC Page 853, has clearly held that: “the litigant withholding vital document relevant to the facts of the case itself is fraud on the court and the guilty party is liable to be thrown out at any stage.” 6. Further, in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 , wherein, the Apex Court has held that: “When the party has suppressed the material facts, he is not entitled to ask for an extra ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, from the High Court as also equitable remedy from the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and a party whose hands are soiled cannot hold the writ of the Court. A prerogative remedy is not available as a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, they very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 7. In the case of Udyaml Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 560, the Apex Court has held that: “A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. Repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. Repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt. Although the prayer made in the four writ applications were apparently different, it became evident that the core issue in each of the matter centered round recovery of the amount advanced to the appellants by the bank. 8. It is also pertinent to note that, all the three authorities have recorded the concurrent finding of fact against the appellants, after critical evaluation of the original records available on record. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the three authorities, after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellants and after careful perusal of the original records available on file, interference by this court by exercising supervisory powers, is not justifiable, as held by the apex court and this court in hosts of judgments. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeals filed by appellants are dismissed, with cost of Rs.8,000/-, at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each. 10. The appellants herein are directed to deposit the said amount to the High Court Legal services Committee, at Principal Bench at Bangalore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the said amount is not deposited by the appellants within a period of four weeks, the Secretary High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the said amount forthwith. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th appellant has filed a memo dated 22.10.2008 duly signed by the 4th appellant, seeking leave to withdraw the writ appeal. 12. After careful perusal of the statement made in the memo and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and the order passed in these appeals, we do not find any justification to permit the 4th appellant at this stage, to withdraw the writ appeal filed by him. Hence, the said memo filed by the 4th appellant is dismissed as mis-conceived.