IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 387 (M/S) of 2004 Mohan Singh, S/o Jeet Singh, R/o Village Kilore Patti Devdaru Tehsil and District Nainital. ….Petitioner Vs Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital and another. …..Respondents Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issue appropriate order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 6-5-2004 (Annexure No.1) passed by respondent No.1 in mutation proceedings passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kumuan Mandal, Nainital in Revision No.1 of 20, 2001-2002 Mohan Singh Vs. Smt. Kalavati whereby the revision was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the Smt. Parvati Devi W/o Sri Chatur Singh was the tenure holder and she had died on 5.5.1997. Smt. Kalawati claims herself as a legal heir of deceased Parvati Devi and filed an application for mutation under Section 34/35 of the Land Revenue Act. The petitioner also filed the objections against the application filed by the respondent No.2 before the Tehsildar on the ground that the petitioner is the brother of the 2 husband of the deceased Parvati Devi on the basis of Will dated 28.04.1997 alleged to be executed by Parvati Devi in their favour. On 05-11-1998, Tehsildar dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner and ordered that the land of Parvati Devi be mutated in the name of the respondent No.2 i.e. Kalawati Devi. Aggrieved by the order dated 05-11-1998, passed by the Tehsildar, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Collector which too was dismissed by learned Assistant Collector on 12-09-2001 on the ground that the Will dated 28-04-1997 filed by the petitioner is unregistered and failed to prove the Will beyond suspicious circumstances and confirmed the order of the Tehsildar. Aggrieved by the order dated 12-09-2001, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court of learned Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act, which was registered as Revision No. 1/20, 2001-2002. The Additional Commissioner, Kumaun Mandal, Nainital has also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner vide order dated 06-05-2004. Hence, this petition has been filed. The mutation proceedings are summary proceedings and fiscal in nature. In the present case, undisputedly 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 3 Revenue Act. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a suit before the competent Court. Section 40(A) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which 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 aforesaid provision, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner may avail alternate remedy by filing a regular suit in the competent court. (B.S. Verma,J) M.K. 19-9-2008 4