IN THE COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 551 of 2003 (M/S) Shiv Kumar Gupta Son of Sri Hukum Chandji Resident of Mohala Lakarharan Jwalapur District Haridwar. General Power of Attorney Holder of his wife St. Kamlesh Gupta. ................Petitioner. Versus Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar and others. ............... Respondents. Dated: - November 21, 2008. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri H.S. Rawal, advocate holding brief for Sri V.B.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for to set aside the order dated 23.05.2003 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.1 and order dated 7.6.2003 (Annexure no.5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2, whereby ordered for demarcation of the land of respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application for demarcation, which was moved before the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar, is not maintainable. The competent officer is Assistant Collector, First Class/ Sub-Divisional Officer for that the purpose and not Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar to demarcate the land. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3, Sri Lok Pal Singh has contended that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner either to move an application for recalling the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar or assail the said order by way of revision before the competent authority. I have perused the application and notice issued by the Naib Tehsildar . The petitioner had filed objection on 5.6.2003 after passing of the order to take steps for demarcation. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2003 passed by the respondent No.1, the remedy available to the petitioner was either to move recall application before the respondent no. 1 or to assail the said order before the revisional court. Since the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner as mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 23.06.2003 stands vacated. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 21.11.2008 (B. S. Verma, J.)