IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 575 of 2003 (M/S) Ganesh Dutt Pant son of late Sri Hem Chand Pant resident of Tehsil Colony, Lachhemshwar, Almora, District Almora and another. ………..Petitioner. Versus Thakur Singh son of Dhan Singh, resident of Village Dodri Patwari Circle, Chauriyar, District Pithoragarh and seven others. ……Respondents. Date:- March 19, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 5 to 8. BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 31.5.2003 and 16.6.2003 (Annexure Nos. 5 and 6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent nos. 5 and 8 respectively. (ii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of petition. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition are that the petitioners are claiming possession over the land which was sold by way of sale deed on 21.6.2003 by the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and it is alleged that the land is in their possession. The petitioners have filed objection before the Tehsildar on 10.7.2002. The Tehsildar, Gangolihat rejected the objection of the petitioners and allowed the mutation application of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the order the petitioners preferred appeal under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called as the Act) before the Assistant Collector, Gangolihat that too was dismissed after hearing both the parties. Further aggrieved by the order of Assistant Collector, the petitioners preferred revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital. The learned Commissioner has held that the petitioners have also alleged that the land is of a joint khata and if any party is aggrieved, he may file the suit for partition to separate his share. The order to allow the mutation application was also upheld by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging all the orders passed by the Trial Courts. It is pertinent to mention here that the mutation proceedings are summary in nature and order passed under Section 35 of Act does not bar any suit in a competent court as has been provided under Section 40-A of the Act. Section 40-A of the Act reads as under:- “40-A. Saving as to title Suits. No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a Competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.” If the petitioners claim that they have acquired the right by way of adverse possession on the land in dispute, they may file a regular suit in the competent court of jurisdiction. If they claim that they are tenure holders, they may file suit for partition as has been held by the Commissioner. In view of the fact that the alternate remedy is available to the petitioners to file regular suit in the competent court of jurisdiction, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. Interim order dated 30.6.2003 passed by this Court stands vacated. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. Dated: 19.3.2009 (B.S. Verma, J.) RMY