Honble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This Special Appeal has been filed under the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the order dated 6.8.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 3875 of 2005 rejecting the application for recall if its earlier orders dated 2.3.2007 and 16.3.2007.

2. This case has a chequered history, as two rounds of litigation have already been completed. The matter has gone upto the Honble Supreme Court twice and in spite of the fact that several orders have been passed by various Courts, the litigation is not coming to an end.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land in dispute, i.e. Bungalow 26/14, Hastings Road (Nyaya Marg), Allahabad, measuring an area of 22528 sq. meters stood notified under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act 1894) on 14.2.1986 and in respect of the same, declaration under Section 6 of the Act 1894 was made on 15.2.1986. As the land was urgently needed, provisions contained under Section 17 of the Act 1894 were invoked. Possession of the entire land was taken under Section 16 of the Act 1894 on 8.5.1986 and it vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In respect of the said property, an Award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter called the Collector) on 28.10.1987 giving separate amount of compensation in respect of land, building, trees and other fixtures etc., assessing the value of the land @ Rs. 500/- per sq. meter. Against the said Award dated 28.10.1987, L.A. Reference No. 122 of 1988 was filed, which was decided by the District Judge, Allahabad on 20.7.1989 assessing the market value of the land @ Rs. 500/- per sq. meter with apportionment to 75% in favour of claimants and 25% in favour of the State, for the reason that the land was the leasehold property and the lease was to expire only after seven years of the date of acquisition. Being aggrieved, the claimants approached this Court by filing First Appeal No. 147 of 1990, which was decided on 22.10.1992 assessing the market rate of the land @ Rs. 423/- per sq. meter and further holding that the State was entitled for 50% of the compensation. However, this Court observed that the said land also ought to have been assessed under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act 1976) and directed the authority under the Act 1976 to determine the surplus land, if any, at the hands of the persons interested and to make payment of compensation for that area under the provisions of the Act 1976. The claimants approached the Honble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 10786 of 1996, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 1st August, 1996. In the meanwhile, the Competent Authority under the Act 1976 vide its order dated 18.6.1993 had decided that claimants were having 13657.35 sq. meters as surplus land. Being aggrieved, they preferred a Ceiling Appeal before the District Judge, Allahabad, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 2.5.1995, wherein it was held that claimants were having only 9157 sq. meters as surplus land. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred three writ petitions, i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26415 of 1995; 26416 of 1995; and 26449 of 1995. All the said writ petitions came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 9th August, 2005 wherein the issue arose as to whether the proceedings under the Act 1976 had lapsed in view of the fact that the Act 1976 stood repealed by the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (hereinafter called the Act 1999). The Court did not address itself to the issue as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where possession had been taken on 8.5.1986 and the surplus area, if any, was to be determined notionally only for the purpose of