THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1876 of 2008. Monish Mirza, adult, son of Sri Mohsin Ali Mirza and two others. … Petitioners. Vs. The State of Uttaranchal, through Dy. Collector, Almora, and five others. …Respondents. Sri R.C.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 to 3 and 6. Date October 17, 2008. P.C.: Hon’bl e B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri R.C.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 to pass an order after setting aside the order dated 7-8-2007 arising out of correction proceedings under Section 39 of the Land Revenue Act in Case No. 1/2003-2004 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Almora, dated 21-2- 2004. Section 40-A of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 reads as under:- “40-A. Saving as to title suits.- No order passed under Section 33, Section 35, Section 39, Section 40, Section 41 or Section 54 shall bar any suit in a competent Court for relief on the basis of a right in a holding.” Alternate remedy is available to the petitioners to file regular suit in the competent court of jurisdiction. On the ground of alternate remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners may file regular suit for declaration of their rights in the competent court permissible under law. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 2