IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.541 of 2001 (M/S) Balwant Singh ..… Petitioner Versus Collector Haridwar and others ….. Respondents Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for respondent no.1 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the Collector Haridwar (respondent no.1), whereby the said court allowed the revision of the respondent no.3 and remanded the case to the trial court to decide it on its merits. According to the petitioner, a revision was filed by the respondent no.3 to set aside the order dated 7.7.2000 passed by Nayab Tehsildar, Jwalapur, whereby the mutation proceedings were stayed on the ground that the civil suit is pending between the parties. The revisional court set aside the order and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision on its merit. The revisional court held that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and the same cannot be stayed on the ground that the civil suit is pending between the parties. I have perused the impugned judgment and order. 2 The learned Collector has rightly held that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature. The civil suit, filed by the petitioner for cancellation of sale deed, has to be decided on its merit by the civil court. I find no illegality or perversity in the order impugned. The writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (B.S. Verma, J.) 5.3.2011 RG 2