JUDGMENT Hon'ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a following prayer :- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.7.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 312 of 2004-2005 and order dated 7.10.2004 in Revision No. 52 of 2002-2003. (b) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (c) Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 3. Undisputed, facts of the case are that the proceedings were initiated before the Survey Naib Tehsildar, Gadarpur under Section 54 of the land Revenue Act and the name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue record vide order dated 23.5.1998. Against the order dated 23.5.1998, the State was preferred a revision before Record Officer i.e. Additional Collector, Udham Singh Nagar, which was decided on 7.10.2004 and the order of survey Naib Tehsildar dated 23.5.1998 was set aside by the Additional Collector/Record Officer and the name of the petitioner was expunged and the name of the original tenure holder Sri Ravindra Nath was recorded. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision No. 312 of 2004-2005 before the Chief Revenue Commissioner and the Chief Revenue Commissioner dismissed the revision, which was filed by the petitioner. 5. Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the proceedings under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and the petitioner had an alternate remedy to file a regular suit before the competent court. 6. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Chief Revenue Commissioner and Survey Naib Tehsildar. This fact is not disputed that the proceedings were initially initiated under Section 54 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. 7. In the present case, undisputedly alternate remedy to bring a suit in regular Court is available to the petitioner as provided by Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a suit before the competent Court. 8. 7. In the present case, undisputedly alternate remedy to bring a suit in regular Court is available to the petitioner as provided by Section 40-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The petitioner has an alternate remedy to file a suit before the competent Court. 8. 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." 9. 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. 10. However, the petitioner may avail alternate remedy by filing a regular suit in the competent court.