JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - 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. 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. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to exercise my powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is noteworthy that if the consolidation authorities are not acting in accordance with law, the petitioners may approach the higher authorities if any real harm is done to them. The petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition complaining the apprehended harm to them. The present writ petition was presented on 24-7-1987. More than a year has passed. The petitioners may approach the consolidation authorities and may pray for the action by the opposite parties - No. 2 and'3 within the fore - corners of law. Really if the chak allotted to the opposite party No. 5 by the revisional court does not include plots Nos. 3218, 3219 and 3220, there is no need for demarcation of a chak on those plots to opposite party No. 5. However, this matter can be properly dealt with by the revisional court and the appellate court when the petitioners approach them. The grievance of the petitioners that the appellate authority was not available at that time does not subsistent present. The petitioners may approach the appellate authority and the revisional court for requisite reliefs and I am sure that the consolidation authorities shall hear the petitioners and see that the allotment of chak to the opposite party No. 5 is clearly in accordance with law. To my mind, at present the cause of grievance alleged by the petitioners that the appellate authority was not available at that time does not exist. 5. Since the petitioners have no direct interest in the disputed plots as they were declared a chak long ago, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ petition specially when they have no interest in the deputed plots Nos. 3218, 3219 and 3220. 5. Since the petitioners have no direct interest in the disputed plots as they were declared a chak long ago, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to grant the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ petition specially when they have no interest in the deputed plots Nos. 3218, 3219 and 3220. 6. To my mind, if the opposite party No. 4 Mahanand Mishra is trying to harm the petitioners, the petitioners may seek remedy provided by law either before a Civil Court or before a Criminal Court. On the apprehended danger or apprehended injury to Gaon Sabha property, the petitioners cannot be permitted to make any grievance in the present writ petition. 7. As the petitioners have an alternative remedy and they have no interest in the disputed plots, I am not inclined to grant the relief prayed for at this stage. If the consolidation authorities act illegally and harm the petitioners by passing orders hereafter, the petitioners can seek their remedy in law against those orders. At present it is not feasible to grant the relief prayed for. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine after hearing the counsel for the parties. It is expected that the opposite party No, 1, Deputy Director of Consolidation, shall see that the chak allotted to the opposite party No. 5 is strictly in accordance with law and the allotment of chak to the opposite party No. 5 by the revisional court should not be lightly brushed aside and illegal allotment at the stage of A.C.O. be not permitted to be adhered to. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.