AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi and Sri Pankaj Misra for the respondent no.5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for Gaon Sabha for respondent no.4.
(2.) THIS is a peculiar case where the benefit of exchange has been extended to the respondent no.5 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Badlapur, District Jaunpur vide order dated 14.9.2011 on the presumption that such an exchange in respect of a chak road was permissible with the land of the petitioner which has been given in exchange. The petitioner, who claims himself to be a resident of the same village, filed a revision on the ground that the chak road is being utilized by the villagers including the petitioner and, therefore, the revision should be entertained as the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was clearly in violation of the provisions of Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and without following the procedure prescribed in law. It was urged before the revising authority that there was no proposal of the Gaon Sabha for giving the said land in exchange which was entered as a chak road to the respondent no.5 and as such the order deserves to be set aside. Even otherwise, land which was covered under Section 132 of the 1950 Act could not have been given in exchange. The revising authority firstly held that the petitioner had no locus to maintain the revision as he had failed to establish that he was an aggrieved person. It was secondly held that since the purpose for which the land was carved out as a chak road did not fulfill any public purpose, therefore, the exchange was permissible and for which reliance was placed on a couple of decisions of this Court. Thirdly, it was held that since the Land Management Committee of the Gaon Sabha has not opposed the said exchange, therefore, it would not necessary to interfere at the instance of the petitioner. Sri Dwivedi, learned counsel submits that all the three findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are against law, inasmuch as, the petitioner being a villager had every right to maintain the petition as he was also using the said chak road. Secondly, the exchange had been made without the Gaon Sabha having made any proposal for such exchange and, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer could not have assumed this jurisdiction himself. Thirdly, Sri Dwivedi contends that even if the Gaon Sabha had not opposed it, the Sub Divisional Officer or the learned Commissioner were absolutely in error in allowing the said exchange on their own.
(3.) SRI Pankaj Mishra, on the other hand, contends that no loss or damage would be caused to the Gaon Sabha as a very minimal area of .005 hectare has been given in exchange and the petitioner has handed over his valuable land. In view of this error which was pointed out, he submits that the Sub Divisional officer and the learned Additional Commissioner have done substantial justice, as such the impugned orders do not call for any interference.;