Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42832 Court No. - 44 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7484 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shrikrishna And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Revenue Gov. Of U.P. At Lucknow And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. One of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in identical matter, when proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against other lease holders and lease was cancelled on 25.04.2008, various revisions were preferred by the said affected persons, description whereof is mentioned at page no.51 of the writ petition. Submission is that the said revisions were allowed on 24.12.2010, however, in the present case, a contrary order has been passed by the revisional court against an identical order of cancellation of lease. 2. The submission advanced may have some substance, however, the Court finds that in other litigation, the order was passed in the year 2008, whereas, in the present case, order has been passed in the year 2024 i.e. after 16 years. 3. On perusal of revisional court's order deciding various revisions on 24.12.2010, the description of property is not clear. As a matter of fact, neither the property number nor name of the village or tehsil or district etc has been indicated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted three weeks time to bring on record the material so that his submission based upon discrimination may be appreciated. 5. Put up as fresh before appropriate Bench after three weeks. 6. Hard copy of the writ petition produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has been returned back to him and he shall produce the same before the Court on the next date fixed. Matter again taken up 7. After few minutes of passing of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners appeared and submitted that Annexure No. 6 is an order passed in relation to different proceedings of "different Gatas and different village" having no concern with the present case and the order has been annexed just to use it as a "case law" to the effect that in absence of proceedings for cancellation of lease, proceedings under Section 33/39 cannot be utilized for expunging the entries. 8. 8. The Court has tested the submission in light of paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition, which contains description of Annexure No. 6 to the petition and is of the view that a clear attempt has been made to mislead the Court to use Annexure No. 6 as a document to impress the Court as an order passed in favour of other identically placed tenure holders, as if the order has been passed in their favour whereas the petitioners have been discriminated. 9. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and the manner in which a petition is drafted, annexures are appended and the arguments are advanced, all compositely create reasons and grounds for consideration of the matter and grant of relief, if any. 10. In the instant case, the Court is satisfied that attempt has been made to obtain interim/final order by placing reliance upon those documents which have no concern with the controversy raised. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, however, without imposing any cost considering the fact that the petitioners are poor villagers and shall be penalised financially on account of over smartness and a mischievous attempt of counsel for the petitioners. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad