JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. Heard Sri [ENTITY], Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri [ENTITY] and Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. [ENTITY] and Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioners, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] have filed first writ petition being [CASE NUMBER] 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 & 3 respectively, iii. issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble 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] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the [ACT]) were initiated against one Sri [ENTITY] which resulted in an order being passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 24th March, 1977 determining the ceiling limit of Sri [ENTITY] and declaring that Sri [ENTITY] had 61-14-4 Bighas of land in terms of; irrigated land as surplus. Sri [ENTITY] 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 [ENTITY]. Against the order dated 24th March, 1977 Sri [ENTITY] filed an appeal before the District Judge, Saharanpur, which was numbered as Appeal No. 129 of 1977 ([ENTITY] v. State of U.P.). The appeal so filed by Sri [ENTITY] 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 [ENTITY] filed; a [CASE NUMBER] before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11th May, 1978 (Reference, Page-29 of [CASE NUMBER]). 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (reference Page-21 of the [CASE NUMBER]) 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 [ENTITY]. After death of Sri [ENTITY], the wife of Sri [ENTITY] namely, Smt. [ENTITY] filed an application for review of the order of the Appellate Court dated 1st July, 1977 in [CASE NUMBER], Review application soiled by Smt. [ENTITY] was dismissed vide order dated 20th November 1987 by the Additional Commissioner1 on the ground that the same was not maintainable. Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] daughters of Sri [ENTITY], also filed review application before the District Judge. The same were also dismissed on 23rd January, 1988.
5. His two daughters, namely, Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY], who were claiming themselves to be the owners of the land covered by the sale deed executed by Sri [ENTITY] dated 4th July, 1971 in their favour initiated [CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY] v. State of U.P.) and [CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY] 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. [ENTITY], wife of Sri [ENTITY] also filed writ petition before this Court, which was numbered as [CASE NUMBER], the writ petition so filed by Smt. [ENTITY] 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 [CASE NUMBER]. However, it was clarified that allotment proceedings initiated under [SECTION] of the [ACT] shall not be withheld on the ground of pendency of the objection by Smt. [ENTITY] 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 [ENTITY] was allotted to various persons including Sri [ENTITY] and Sri [ENTITY] (who have been impleaded as respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the [CASE NUMBER]) 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. [ENTITY], widow of Sri [ENTITY], (b) by Smt. [ENTITY] and (c)by Smt. [ENTITY], by means of, the order dated- 29thAugust, 2002 and it was maintained that Sri [ENTITY] 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. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] filed [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] 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. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] filed [CASE NUMBER] 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. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] filed special leave petition, which was numbered as [CASE NUMBER] before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said Special leave petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble 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. [ENTITY] wife of Sri [ENTITY] did not challenge the order passed by the prescribed Authority dated 29th August, 2002 by way of appeal under [SECTION] of the Act and permitted the said order to become final.
11. It is surprising that on one hand the dispute raised by Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] had been agitated and settled upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court parallel proceedings were initiated by [ENTITY]. and [ENTITY], the husbands of Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] respectively, by way of [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] 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 [SECTION] of the [ACT] by the present writ petitioners are as follows:
(a) Smt. [ENTITY] who had filed [CASE NUMBER], expired) in the year 1995. The petitioners claim themselves to be the legal heirs of Smt. [ENTITY] on the basis of a will deed said to have been executed in favour of petitioners, namely [ENTITY]. and [ENTITY]., who are admittedly son-in-laws of Smt. [ENTITY], and husband of Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY]. 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. [ENTITY] 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. [ENTITY]. The present petitioners Sri [ENTITY]. and [ENTITY]. representing Smt.| [ENTITY] on the basis of will started contesting the before the Prescribed Authority again.
The Prescribed Authority decided the objections :Sri [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] by means of the order dated 29th August, 2002 along with the objections of Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] by means of a common order.
(d) The wives of the petitioners, namely Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] preferred an appeal under [SECTION] of the Act.
(e) The present petitioners, son-in-laws of Smt. [ENTITY]),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. [ENTITY]) who did not challenge the order of the prescribed Authority before the Commissioner by way of appeal under [SECTION] 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 [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] 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 [CASE NUMBER] are completely silent about the fact that the petitioners (son-in-laws of Smt. [ENTITY]) 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 [CASE NUMBER], which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31st'January, 2003. Against the said order of this Court, an special leave petition was filed and the same has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the legality of the orders impugned in the present [CASE NUMBER] cannot be re-opened on the asking of the petitioners.
13. Now coming to the [CASE NUMBER], which has been filed by Smt. [ENTITY] for the following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ, [ENTITY] for the following reliefs: order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from [CASE NUMBER] except in accordance with law.
(b) Issue such other; and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble 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 [ENTITY], has been satisfied by other land accquireq by the State.
15. In the said writ petition except for referring to passed in [CASE NUMBER] 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 [ENTITY] 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. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] by Sri [ENTITY] 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 [CASE NUMBER] as filed by Smt. [ENTITY], as such cannot entertained by this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
17. It is thus clear that there is deliberate attempt' on the part of the two daughters of Sri [ENTITY], namely, Smt. [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] and their husbands to somehow or other continue in possession of the; land, which been declared as surplus after the ceiling limits of Sri [ENTITY] 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; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] 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 [CASE NUMBER] land 25467 of 2003 are dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- each to be paid by the petitioners, namely, [ENTITY]., Sri [ENTITY]. And [ENTITY], 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.
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.