IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 688 of 2001 (M/S) Babu Singh (deceased) represented through his legal and two others. …… Petitioners. Versus Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow and others. .….. Respondents. Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. The petitioners are directed to file the amended memo of parties during the course of the day. Heard B.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a following prayer: - i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 2- 3-2000 and 30-11-1998 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow and the Additional Commissioner Kumaon Division, Nainital (Annexure No. I and II to this writ petition). ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case. iii) To award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, Sri S.K. Mandal, has submitted that an alternate remedy to bring a suit in regular Court is available to the petitioner as provided under Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. It reveals by the perusal of the impugned orders that the writ petition is arising out from mutation proceedings, which are summary in nature. The petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act reads as under: - “Savings as to title suits- No order passed under Section 33, Section 34, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41, Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.” In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition arising out from mutation proceedings, which are summary in nature. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners may avail alternate remedy by filing a regular suit in the competent court of jurisdiction for declaration of his rights, if so advised. (B.S.Verma, J.) 24-09-2008. M.K. 3