IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLMA Substitution Application No. 277 of 2008 CLMA Substitution Application No. 278 of 2008 CLMA Substitution Application No. 280 of 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3910 OF 2001 (M/S) Ratan Chand & Ors. …………Petitioner. Versus State Of U.P. and others. ……….Respondents. None appears for the petitioners. Mr H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 4 to 6. None appears for rest of the respondents. 21.7.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. None appears to for the petitioners/applicants. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 4 to 6 is present. Present applications have been filed for substituting 5/1 Gurdev Singh, 5/2 Jasbir Singh, 5/3 Nirwan Singh, 5/4 Phool Singh, 5/5 Tara Chand and 5/6 Shankar Singh, Ss/o Guljari Lal in place of petitioner no. 5, further 3/1 Nek Ram, 3/2 Ram Swaroop, 3/3 Sheesh Ram, 3/4 Keshar Singh, Ss/o Rakkaharam in place of petitioner no. 3 Rakkharam, and further 4/1 Malaku, 4/2 Kashmiri, 4/3 Desh Raj, 4/4 Achhar Singh, Ss/o Pooran in place of petitioner no. 4. Writ petition relates to year 1998, but none appears for the petitioners to press the same. I find sufficient reason for substitution of the aforesaid persons. 2 All the aforesaid substitution applications are allowed. Bench Secretary is directed to substitute the legal heirs as mentioned in the applications. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the question of regularization over the disputed land. Further prayer has been made that the respondent may be directed not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioners on their respective plots. A perusal of the writ petition as well as documents filed along with it makes it clear that there is nothing in the merit of the writ petition and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. However, it is made clear that since the petitioner claims title over the land in dispute, therefore, the petitioners may file the suit for declaration of their title over the land in dispute under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 21.7.2008 Rathour.