IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 318 of 2010. Anil Leelambar Pandey alias Neelambar Pandey, S/O Shri Leelambar Pandey alias Leeladhar Pandey, Resident of village Kamaluaganga, Kabdal, Tehsil Haldwani, district Nainital. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State of Uttarakhand through Collector, Nainital and eight others. …Respondents. Mr. M.C.Kandpal, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S.Chauhary, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for respondent nos. 1&2. Date March 15, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1454 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to sale, purchase, alienate, alter/mutate the land belonging to Khata Khatauni No. 00025 of village Kamluaganga Kabdal, Pargana Bhawar, Tehsil Haldwani, district Nainital, regarding the plots mentioned in the relief clause. By a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is obvious that a suit under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, which was filed by the petitioner is still pending. If the petitioner has any grievance against the respondent, he may move an application for temporary injunction under Section 229-D of the said Act for restraining the defendant-respondents. Since statutory alternate remedy is available for seeking temporary injunction before the court concerned, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. On the ground of alternate remedy, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 2