IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 905 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Chandan Ramamurthi, W/O Late M.K.Ramamurthi, R/O A- 16, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049. ……. Petitioner. Versus The Chairman, City Board, Mussoorie, Kulri Chowk, Mussoorie and another. ... Respondents. Sri U.K.Uniyal, Senior Advocate, with Sri Shobhit Saharaia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri A.Rab, learned counsel for the respondents. Date June 04, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, with Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Rab, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner wants to implead City Board Mussoorie through its Executive Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the array of the parties. The petitioner shall file the amended memo of particulars of the parties during the course of the day. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to provide the documents relating to the mutation of the property in question (land measuring 70 acres situated at the Park Estate, Hathi Pao was mutated in the name of Shri M.K.Ramamurthi and Smt. Shamala Pappu) to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, land measuring 70 acres situated at Park Estate, Hathi Pao, Mussoorie was in the name of petitioner’s husband late M.K.Ramamurthi, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and one Shyamala Pappu, Advocate, joint. By a decree dated 30-01-1987 passed by the Delhi High Court, the said land was to be divided equally between them, but after the death of petitioner’s husband on 26-4-1993 and during the pendency of Probate proceeding No. 26 of 1993, the respondents have fraudulently in connivance with Smt. Shaymala Pappu have removed the name of the petitioner’s husband from the Municipal record and in his place the name of Smt. Shyamala Pappu has been mutated on the basis of forged and fabricated mutation entries. When the petitioner came to know about the same, she made application repeatedly to the respondents for providing her copies of the Municipal record and the order by which the entire land had been mutated in the name of Smt. Shyamala Pappu, but the petitioner was not provided with the drsired information. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the ends of justice would be subserved if the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders on the applications of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner may file a fresh application before the respondent no.2. It the application is moved by the petitioner before the respondent no.2, the respondent no. 2 shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the Rules, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP