- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri K. R. Sirohi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri B. K. Pandey appearing for the petitioner and Sri M. K. Tripathi, appearing for the contesting respondent No. 5.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22. 3. 1993 passed by Board of Revenue allowing the second appeal filed by respondent No. 5 arising out of the proceedings under Section 161 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act {for short the 'act') Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under; Gaon Sabha proposed exchange of its plot No. 610 area 6 biswas 16 biswansis with plot No. 617 area 8 biswas 10 biswansis of the petitioner and accordingly passed a resolution dated 11. 4. 1991. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application under Section 161 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer. An objection was filed by respondent No. 5 assailing the exchange on the ground that plot No. 610 of Gaon Sabha had been reserved for manure pits during consolidation operation and the land being reserved for public purpose could not be given in exchange. Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 30. 12. 1991 declined to grant permission for exchange and dismissed the application. Petitioner went up in appeal. Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut vide order dated 30. 7. 1992 allowed the appeal against which respondent No. 5 went up in second appeal. Board of Revenue vide order dated 22. 3. 1993 allowed the same and set aside the order of Additional Commissioner and maintained the order of Sub- Divisional Officer. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) SUB-Divisional Officer though found that Gaon Sabha has passed a resolution for exchange and the difference in land revenue of the two land sought to be exchanged was less than 10 per cent and the exchange was duly recommended by the Supervisor Kanoongo vide report dated 16. 8. 1991, yet refused to grant permission to the exchange on the ground that the land reversed for public purpose, could not have been given in exchange. Lower appellate court allowed the appeal on the ground that since 'abadi' has developed around the land which was reserved for manure pits and there is not much difference in the land revenue of the two lands sought to be exchanged and the exchange is for the benefit of the tenure holders of the village at large. Board of Revenue held that since the land is not vested in the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of Section 117 of the Act but it was vested under Section 29c of the Consolidation Act as land reserved for public purpose and it can only be utilised for the purpose for which it has been earmarked in the consolidation operation as such the exchange is not permissible. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing in Section 29c which may go to show that land reserved for purpose cannot be given in exchange rather section itself provides that where the purpose for which the land had been earmarked, is frustrated then it can be utilised for such other purpose as may be prescribed. It has further been urged that plot No. 610 which had been earmarked for manure pits in the final consolidation scheme, came to lie in the densely populated area of the village with the extension of 'abadi'. Since continuation of manure pits at the site would cause more inconvenience to the public and would be hazardous to public health, Gaon Sabha rightly passed a resolution to exchange its plot with another plot which be used as manure pits.;