V.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) SRI Namwar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and Sri B.N. Pathak along with Sri B.N. Upadhaya, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 are present.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents opened up his argument, raising a preliminary issue that the writ petition was not maintainable, because the petitioners had no locus -standi, the writ petition should not be entertained on this count. Since this preliminary objection had not been raised at the time of admission and the writ petition has been formally admitted on 5.11.2003, this preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected. This writ petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 161, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) regarding plot No. 13 of Gaon Sabha admeasuring .069 acre, situated in village Chahainya, challenging the impugned orders dated 20.12.1997 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) 13.1.1999 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) and 13.3.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition).
(3.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the allegations had been made that respondent No. 3, who was entered as Bhumidhari in plot No. 118 admeasuring area .053 acre, situated in the same village, filed an application before respondent No. 2 for permission to exchange with the plot admeasuring .069 acre of the Gaon Sabha, a portion of plot No. 13. A report of the Tehsildar was called for vide order dated 25.6.1997 of respondent No. 2. The Lekhpal of the village sent a report dated 15.7.1997 to the Tehsildar that the part of the plot No. 118 belonging to respondent No. 3 was being proposed by the Land Management Committee on the direction of Tehsildar Sakaldiha dated 27.6.1997 for exchanging of the aforesaid part of plot No. 118 with plot No. 13 of the Gaon Sabha. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it has been stated that in the said report of the Lekhpal a meeting is said to have been held, though, in fact no such meeting took place. Neither any permission was required under the provisions of the Act from the Up -Zila Adhikari nor any resolution was passed by Land Management Committee (LMC). In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the S.D.M. respondent No. 1 without issuing any notice and inviting any objection against the alleged exchange as contemplated under Rule 145 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) passed a mechanical order on the same date i.e., 20.12.1996 the Tehsildar had submitted his report.;