Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:3879 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 46 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mr. Ram Jash Yadav And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuradha Arora Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri T.S.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners prayed for the following relief :- "(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding to all respondents for initiation of new consolidation proceedings in the above mentioend village Gangauli as well as the Gram Panchayat, Gangauli and to quash the previous consolidation proceedings for lawful allocation of the Chaks, Sector Roads, Chaks Roads and to preserve ponds etc. in the larger public interest as well as for environmental betterment." 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that several representations have been moved by the petitioners before the respective authorities including the District Magistrate, S.D.M., Tehsildar and Consolidation OfÏcer but all such representations/complaints have remained unattended as a result in terms of the consolidation operations, the petitioners who were granted possessions over their newly carved out chaks in the year 1999, the same are being hindered and obstructed at the behest of one person namely Shiv Pratap Yadav. It is also alleged that all the authorities are under his influence and whosoever raises a voice against the same, their chaks are disturbed and the documents etc. have been mutilated and torn and all the sector roads and chak-margs have been disturbed. The representations regarding the same were made since September, 2023 but no action has been taken as a consequence, the petitioners have come up before this Court in the instant writ petition claiming the reliefs which have been reproduced hereinabove. 4. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners to indicate from the petition what were the details of the plots which were carved out and handed over to the present petitioners in the consolidation operations in the year 1999 as indicated from the representation. What are the details of such petitioners and whether they have any personal right. When the petitioners raised the aforesaid objections with particularity, to which learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same has not been indicated in the petition rather if time is granted, he can always supplant the same by filing a supplementary afÏdavit. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from perusal of the material on record, the representations which have been brought on record as Annexure No.1 which is the cause of action for the petitioners, is completely vague inasmuch as it does not indicate as to the personal right of the petitioners, what plots they were allotted during consolidation operations. When the consolidation was concluded and as per the allegations, if at all, the petitioners were granted the possession in the year 1999, then when the alleged ill actions of Shiv Pratap Yadav took place which is also conspicuously absent both in the representation as well as in the pleadings of the writ petition. The allegations against the alleged Shiv Pratap Yadav have been raised but he has not been impleaded as a party in the petition. It has also not been indicated whether any F.I.R. or complaint was filed against the said ill actions. 6. In absence of any clear pleadings and only vague averments coupled with the fact that none of the petitioners have come forward to press the averments made in the petition by filing the afÏdavit as the afÏdavit in support of the petition has been filed by a third person who is stated to be a neighbour of petitioner no.1. None of the petitioners have filed their afÏdavit in support of the petition and the deponent of the afÏdavit filed in support of the writ petition, has any authority to file the petitions on their behalf. 7. Taking the overall view of the matter, this Court finds that the petition is absolutely misconceived and is an abuse of the process of law, hence, it is dismissed with a cost of Rs.2,500/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, within a week from today. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Shukla Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench