JUDGMENT : RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by M/s Allied Plus Infra and Other Pvt Ltd. through its Managing Director Priya Sharma with the following reliefs: i. Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 03.05.2024 contained as Annexure No. 1 in the interest of justice. ii. Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the order dated 18.03.2024 contained as Annexure No. 2 in the interest of justice. iii. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. iv. Issue ad interim direction to the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner on the basis of the order dated 18.03.2024 and 03.05.2024. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the ceiling proceeding was commenced in 1974 and on completion of ceiling proceeding 612.524 hectare land of M/S Kesar Sugar was taken on ceiling and the remaining 16.4690 hectare of land was exempted from ceiling proceeding and released pursuant to an order passed by the authority of Consolidation in 1977. 3. Subsequently, the order passed by the prescribed authority was challenged in the ceiling appeal no. 251 of 1976 before the learned District Judge, which was dismissed against which a Writ Petition No. 3223 of 1977 was preferred by the company known as Kesar Sugar Works Ltd. Bahedei, now known as Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (respondent no. 6 herein). During the pendency of aforesaid writ petition one another petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 14493 of 2002 was preferred by one Smt. Sarla Jeevan Lal Shah challenging the same order, which was subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3223 of 1997. Since, both the petitions pertains to the same cause of action, consequently both the petitions were clubbed together. 4. In Writ Petition No. 14493 of 2002 the State filed their counter affidavit on 28.03.2008 wherein a categorical statement was given in paragraphs 6, 8, 12, 16 and 20 that the land in question is owned by Kesar Sugar Mill and recorded in the name of Jeevan Lal as representative of Company and he was Director in the company. 4. In Writ Petition No. 14493 of 2002 the State filed their counter affidavit on 28.03.2008 wherein a categorical statement was given in paragraphs 6, 8, 12, 16 and 20 that the land in question is owned by Kesar Sugar Mill and recorded in the name of Jeevan Lal as representative of Company and he was Director in the company. In rejoinder affidavit an averment was made that Jeevan Lal Shah died on 19.02.1992 and after 10 years Smt. Sarla Jeevan Lal Shah preferred Writ Petition No. 14493 of 2002 against order dated 05.07.2002 and 30.07.1977 passed by prescribed authority and the District Judge. It was also stated that if the land in question is their personal property then he would file objection under Section 11(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and Holding Act but neither Jeevan Lal nor Smt. Sarla Jeevan Lal Shah filed such objection. 5. On 12.07.2009 Smt. Sarla Jeevan Lal Shah died and since there was no substitution application in the pending writ petition, consequently, on 11.08.2011 the petition was dismissed as abated. Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 3223 of 1997 filed by Kesar Sugar was dismissed in merit by the High Court on 22.03.2012 and the orders passed by the ceiling authorities were confirmed against which the SLP i.e. civil appeal no. 18442-18443 of 2012 was filed by Kesar Sugar that too was also dismissed on 17.07.2012. 6. After dismissal of the SLP what has happened one Panna Vinay Shah filed an application for substitution as well as for recalling the order dated 11.08.2011 in Writ Petition No. 14493 of 2002, which was dismissed by the High Court on 15.01.2013 by a detailed order, which is being reproduced herein as under: “The writ petition was dismissed on 11th August, 2011 by the following order:- "It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sole petitioner Smt. Sarla Jeevan Lal has expired about a year back. No substitution application has been filed. The writ petition is dismissed as abated." Three applications have been filed. One is for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application also for setting aside the abatement. The next application is to recall the order dated 11th of August, 2011 and restore the writ petition to its original number and the third is to substitute the name of applicant Mrs. One is for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application also for setting aside the abatement. The next application is to recall the order dated 11th of August, 2011 and restore the writ petition to its original number and the third is to substitute the name of applicant Mrs. Panna Vinay Shah in place of sole petitioner Smt. Sarla Jeevan Lal. It is not disputed that the petitioner had died on 12.7.2009. Sri C.K. Rai, learned counsel, opposes the aforesaid application and he submits that as a matter of fact, there were three connected writ petitions and the main writ petition was W.P. No.3223 of 1977 which was dismissed on merits and an application to review that order has also been dismissed. The other Writ Petition No.43096 of 2004 filed by Sri C.K. Rai was also dismissed as the main petition had been dismissed. He submits that nothing survives in the present writ petition in view of dismissal of the writ petition No.3229 of 1977. Besides the above, the present writ petition No.14493 of 2002 was filed in the year 2002 challenging the orders dated 5th of July, 1976 and 30th of July, 1977 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge, Bareilly declaring certain land surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner has stated that the impugned orders are null and void as no notice was given to her. The validity of the impugned orders has already been upheld in the writ petition No.3223 of 1977 and the present writ petition was connected, on prayer of the petitioner, with the aforesaid writ petition. It appears that the applicant somehow wants to keep the matter alive and with that view these applications have been filed. All the applications deserve to be dismissed. In view of the fact that the petitioner had died and a statement was given by the petitioner’s counsel about the death of petitioner, I do not find any good ground to recall the order dated 11th August, 2011. In the result, all the applications are hereby dismissed.” 7. All the applications deserve to be dismissed. In view of the fact that the petitioner had died and a statement was given by the petitioner’s counsel about the death of petitioner, I do not find any good ground to recall the order dated 11th August, 2011. In the result, all the applications are hereby dismissed.” 7. Since, the SLP of the Kesar Sugar was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 17.07.2012and the orders passed by the ceiling authorities has affirmed, consequently the Kesar Sugar filed an application under Section 12A before the ceiling authorities in respect of the remaining land i.e. 16.4690 hectare for the purposes of clubbing and the same was registered as Ceiling Case No. 51 of 2001/2011-13 which was allowed on 28.07.2014, whereby in village Khurpiya 11.5654 hectare was given and in village Bandia 4.9036 hectare was given. 8. Thereafter Panna Vinay Shah whose application for recalling the order dated 11.08.2011 was rejected by the High Court on 15.01.2023 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC in Ceiling Case No. 51 of 2011/2011- 13 through her power of attorney holder namely ‘Neelesh Kumar Singh’ and the same was allowed by the prescribed authority. 9. On 03.05.2024 the order passed by the prescribed authority dated 03.05.2024, whereby, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 and the application under Order 9 Rule 31 of CPC was allowed is now being assailed by the petitioner MS Allied Plus Infra and Other Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that the prescribed authority who allowed these two applications in infact hand in glove with the persons who moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 and the application under Order 9 Rule 31 of CPC. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that so far as the order of the ceiling authorities are concerned the same already attains finality since the SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court and even otherwise the same was not challenged by Panna Vinay Shah at any point of time, therefore, she has no locus to move an application under Order 1 Rule 10. He further submits that in fact the land, which was ceiling proceeding and the land, which was the subject matter of Ceiling Case No. 51 of 2001/2011-13 are owned by Kesar Sugar, which is a company and the predecessor of Panna Vinay Shah was recorded in the revenue records only as a representative of Kesar Sugar, therefore, Panna Vinay Shah and her attorney holders have no right to move such an application. He further argued that even otherwise the order dated 15.01.2013 by which the High Court dismissed the application for setting aside the abatement order was never been challenged by Panna Vinay Shah and her power of attorney holders and without challenging the same the application has been moved under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 9 Rule 13 of CPCby Panna Vinay Shah through its power of attorney holders, which was not maintainable despite this since the prescribed authority was hand in glove with them, which is evident from the order itself he has passed the order impugned, which is perse illegal and the same is being challenged in the petition on the ground that the prescribed authority in a malafide manner passed the order impugned. 11. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, leanred counsel for respondent no. 7, raised a preliminary objection by reserving the right to file a detailed counter affidavit that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order passed by the prescribed authority and furthermore the order impugned is appealable order and, hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and even otherwise the petitioners’ company is no more in existence, which is evident from the order of the NCLT dated 21.02.2025. In addition to the aforesaid submission Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal further submits that infact this petitioner is hand in glove with the Kesar Sugar and the order impugned is already assailed by the Kesar Sugar in Civil Revision No. 09 of 2024-25. 12. In response to the preliminary objection of Mr. Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant writ petition was filed on 06.05.2024 whereas the revision was filed by the Kesar Sugar on 06.09.2024 that too after more than three months, therefore, raising preliminary objection to the extent that Kesar Sugar already assailed the order by way of a revision have no impact on this petition. Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instant writ petition was filed on 06.05.2024 whereas the revision was filed by the Kesar Sugar on 06.09.2024 that too after more than three months, therefore, raising preliminary objection to the extent that Kesar Sugar already assailed the order by way of a revision have no impact on this petition. He also submits that even otherwise it is a settled law that an alternative remedy has no absolute bar in entertaining writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. He also submits that the preliminary objection as raised by the respondents are thoroughly misconceived since the petitioner entered with an MOU with the Kesar Sugar the actual owner of the property for developing the land and to sell it out, therefore, the petitioners’ company have interest over the property in question and as such have locus. He also submits in reference to the preliminary objection that the petitioner’s company is no more in existence that such an objection are thoroughly misconceived since the dispute in this regard is still pending before the NCLT as reflected from the order of the NCLT dated 25.02.2025. In the company there are two directors and there is some dispute in between both of them but the company still exists. 13. So far as Mr. Aditya Singh is concerned, who represents Kesar Sugar the respondent no. 6 advanced his argument by submitting that in fact the land in question was allotted to Kesar Sugar in 1935-36 in pre-independence and for the purposes of recording the name in the revenue records Late Jeevan Lal Shah only act as representative of the company, which is evident from one of the letter of Jeevan Lal Shah dated 17.01.1956 but surprisingly the Tehsildar on 06.02.2023 entered the name of the successor of Jeevan Lal Shah in the revenue records and immediately after the order of the Tehsildar four gift deeds and two sale deeds were executed by Panna Vinay Shah and immediately thereafter she filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S. No. 49 of 2023 and sought injunction against Kesar Sugar their officials officials i.e. the Managing Director and the CEO, wherein, on 03.05.2023 the temporary injunction was granted. He also pointed out that there was another petition filed by Panna Vinay Shah i.e. WPMS No. 876 of 2016, which was finally disposed of on 07.05.2018 by giving liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the concerned authority for the purposes of mutation of Village Bandia but used in village Khurpia. 14. Mr. Aditya Singh further submits with an intention to take undue advantage of the temporary injunction order dated 03.05.2023 Panna Vinay Shah and her associates immediately approach to the police officials and with the help of the police officials they took possession forcibly of the land, which was gifted and sold out to other persons. Certain photographs have also been enclosed in WPMS No. 997 of 2023 and after taking possession surprisingly the civil suit no. 49 of 2023 was withdrawn. He submits that all the action of Panna Vinay Shah appears to be misleading and infact she with her associates and power of attorney holders play fraud with the court. 15. Put up this matter tomorrow (03.01.2026) on the request of Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal for further arguments.