K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:- "To issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to act in accordance with the law and to give a chak to the respondent No. 5 at a place where he has been finally given a chak by the consolidation authorities and further not to disturb the petitioners passage to their chaks through plot Nos. 3218, 3219 and 4220."
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that opposite party No. 4 Maha Nand Mishra, Paradhan of the Gaon Sabha, is inimical to the petitioners. A chak has been allotted to opposite party No. 5 Jhujra which did not include plots Nos. 3218, 3219 and 3220 and the aforesaid plots were probably included in the chak of the opposite party No. 5 at the stage of the A.C.O. but ultimately those plots were not allotted in the chak of the opposite party No. 5. The aforesaid plots were ACHAK plots and had become the property of the Gaon Sabha. At present the petitioners contention is that opposite party No. 4 with a view to harm the petitioners is trying to get a chak demarcated to the opposite party No. 5 in consonance with the order of allotment passed by the A.C.O. which has not been upheld by the opposite party No. 1, that is, the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Banda. The petitioners approached the Dy. Director of Consolidation with grievance who indicated that the claim of the petitioners would be examined by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation as has been mentioned in paragraph 13 of the writ - petition. It has also been stressed that the Assistant Settlement Officer of Consolidation was not available at that time, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining that the consolidation authorities are not helping the petitioners and the local Police was also not attending to the grievances of the petitioners and was demanding stay order to help the petitioners. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition for the relief mentioned above.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has pointed out that the petitioners have no interest in the disputed plots. The petitioners prayer is misconceived. Since the petitioners have no interest in the disputed plots, no relief could be granted to the petitioners in the present writ petition.;