IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1633 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Kusum Devi W/o Laate Pitamber Singh, R/o Village- Dhakrani, Pargana, Pachawadoon, Tehsil- Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus Surendra Singh, S/o Sri Rajendra Singh and others. .….. Respondents. Sri H.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondent No.1- caveator. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri H.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-caveator. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the impugned orders dated 30-7-2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun in Revision No.79 of 2007-08 “ Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. Surender Singh and others” and order dated 26-12-2007 passed by learned Record Officer, Dehradun in Appeal No.10 of 2001-2002 “ Surender Singh and others Vs. Smt. Kusum”. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri M.S.Tyagi 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. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a suit before the competent Court. 2 Admittedly, the proceedings were initiated by the parties under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the proceedings are summary in nature. 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.” A perusal of the above quoted Section 40-A of the aforesaid Act would show that a person, aggrieved by the order passed in the mutation proceedings under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, can challenge it on regular side. The dispute in the proceedings is whether the will in favour of the petitioner is genuine one or the will is in favour of respondent, which was executed by tenure holder Smt. Darshani Devi is genuine one are disputed question of fact and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. In view of the above facts, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition arising out from mutation proceedings. On the ground of alternate remedy available to the petitioner, which are summary in nature. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner 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.) 17-9-2008. M.K. 3