B. Amit Sthalekar, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the revisional order dated 10.3.1999 and the order dated 9.9.1998 passed by the Tehsildar, Mathura in proceedings under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in the case in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 ( 105) RD 143has held that in proceeding arising under section 122-B of the Act of 1950, there is an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of suit whether the order is passed by Assistant Collector or Collector and the writ petition is not maintainable. 3. In Writ Petition No. 76208 of 2011, Radhey Shyam v. Collector and others, the learned Single Judge has taken a view that in such proceedings the petitioner has a remedy by way of filing a civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court has however, while dismissing the writ petition granted interim protection to the petitioner to the extent that for a period of one month from the date of the order the petitioner will not be dispossessed from the land in dispute so as to enable to him to avail the alternative remedy. 4. Similar view has also been taken in Writ Petition No. 26647 of 2000, Taslim v. Addl. Collector-cum-A.D.M., JyotiBa Phule Nagar and others, that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding initiated under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. 5. Tie present writ petition also arises out 01 the proceedings initiated under section 122-B of the Act of 1950 and as held by this Court the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction and the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petition Dismissed.