IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Interim Relief Application No.341 of 2010 In Writ Petition No.694 of 2010 (M/S) Smt. Rajveer Kaur ……Petitioner. Versus Udham Singh and others. ….Respondents. Mr. K.S. Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Dated: -12-05-2010 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to correct the relief clause No.1. Permission granted. The necessary amendment be made during the course of the day. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus not to arrest the husband of the petitioner being a ill health and mentally disorder person, therefore, this writ petition has been filed on his behest as has been stated in para No. 3 to the writ petition. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that according to the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 4,40000/- by mortgaging half share of the land from the Punjab National Bank, Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar on 10-02-2009 and on 28-03-2009, the husband of the petitioner took another loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from Punjab National Bank, 2 Gularbhoj and on 20-3-2009 and on 01-04-2000, he took a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Union Bank of India, Rudrapur. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the loan was not paid by the husband of the petitioner. The notice was issued by the respondent No.6 i.e. Tehsildar and according to them the respondent No.1 got registered sale deed of the half share of the land in question in their favour by playing fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the notice was also given to the respondent No.6 i.e. Tehsildar not to mutate the name of the respondent No.1 in the revenue record on the basis of the alleged sale deed. If the petitioner has any grievance, the mutation be not made in their favour, she may file objection under Section 34 of Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, if the order has not been passed. If the order is passed then she may file recall application under Section 201 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 for recalling the order of mutation proceedings. So far as the recovery of loan is concerned, according to the petitioner this fact has been admitted in para No. 6 to the writ petition that the loan was taken by the husband of the petitioner. No protection can be granted to the petitioner. Since it is an admitted fact that the loan was taken by the petitioner’s husband. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 12-05-2010 MK