IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 479 of 2009 With Stay Vacation Application No. 2451/2009 Kurban Ali S/O Ali Hasan, R/O Mohalla Quila, Mahalla Quila, Manglore, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ……….. Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Revenue Department, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and three others. ………. Respondents Sri Brij Bhushan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State-respondent nos. 1 to 3. Date April 01, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3-6- 2008, passed by Tehsildar Roorkee-respondent no.3 in Revenue Case No.111 of 2000-2001, Navin Vs. Kurban Ali and the order dated 30- 5-2008 passed by the Collector Haridwar-respondent no.2 in Revision No. 143 of 2007-08, Kurban Ali Vs. State of Uttarakhand. Further prayer for issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to record the evidence in the said revenue case and decide the case on merits. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner filed mutation application before Tehsildar Roorkee on 12-3.2001. The proclamation was issued and the application was rejected on 17-4-2001. On the application of the petitioner, it was restored to its original number and the mutation application was allowed vide order dated 2-7-2001. Navin Kumar and Sachin Kumar filed the restoration application to recall the order dated 2-7-2001, which was allowed on 16-5-2006 and the earlier order passed by Tehsildar Roorkee dated 2- 7-2001 was set aside. Learned Tehsildar on 28-4-2008 closed the evidence of the petitioner. Against the order of closing of evidence, he filed recall application, which was rejected on 30-05-2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this order dated 28-4-2008 was also assailed before the Collector in Revision No. 143/2007-08. The revision was dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits vide order dated 30-5-2008 passed by the Collector, Haridwar. On 3-6-2008, learned Tehsildar rejected the mutation application of the petitioner, for want of evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that this fact was not within the knowledge of Tehsildar Roorkee that some revision was pending before the Collector. The petitioner also moved a revision application besides moving a recall application before the Collector. Out of the two remedies, the petitioner could have chosen either to file recall application or to file revision. In prayer no. 1 of the writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3-6-2008. Alternate statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act to file appeal before the Assistant Collector, 1st Class Incharge of the sub division. However, the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the order dated 3-6-2008 passed by Tehsildar Roorkee. The order dated 28-4-2008 passed by Tehsildar along with the order dated 30-05-2008 passed the Collector in revision stood merged in the order dated 3-6-2008 passed by the Tehsildar Roorkee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector, the Assistant Collector, 1st Class Incharge of sub division shall decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits expeditiously as far as possible. The plea taken by the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him may be taken by the petitioner in his appeal. With the said observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. All pending application also stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP