A.N.VARMA, J. - (1.) THE instant petition arises out of the proceedings initiated under section 161 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')- The opposite party No. 5 made an application under section 161 of the Act for exchange of Plot Nos. 128M, 139, 142, 144, 174, 184, 183, 187, 188, 195 and 384 measuring 1.884 hectares situate in village Parakhan, Pargana Haveli Awadh, Tehsil Sadar, District Faizabad in lieu of Plot Nos. 150M, 156, 157, 158, 159,160 and 161 measuring 0.939 hectares. To the said application, the con­cerned Gaon Sabha raised an objection that the exchange cannot be permitted as the land sought to be so exchanged was a pub­lic utility land, which under the Act was not permissible. The opposite party No. 2," on the basis of the report submitted by the Tehsildar opined that the land sought to be exchanged is not a public utility land nor was being used as such. In view of the aforesaid vide order dated 30.4.2002, the application preferred by the opposite party No. 5, was allowed.
(2.) BEING aggrieved against the said judgment and order, the Gaon Sabha as well as the petitioner claiming himself to be the Member of the Gaon Sabha and having some interest over the land in question, filed revisions. The opposite party No. 1, vide its judgment and order dated 19.10.2004 dismissed the revisions and maintained the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court. The petitioner through. the present petition has assailed both the aforesaid judgments and orders. I have heard Sri Shobhit Mohan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in sup­port of the petition as well as Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing on be­half of the opposite party No. 5 and Sri Pankaj Gupta holding brief of Sri R.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 4 in opposition.
(3.) SRI Mohan vehemently argued that the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are manifestly illegal and erroneous inasmuch as the application preferred by the opposite party No. 5, has wrongly been allowed inasmuch as a public utility land has been permitted in ex­change. As per his submissions, the land belonging to Gaon Sabha and being used exclusively for public purposes could not be allowed to be exchanged. He further argued that Gata No. 384 has been in possession of the petitioner and his ancestors over which a temple and a Samadhi exists and, therefore, the same could not have been given to the opposite party No. 5.;