Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 13 February 2017 passed by the first respondent, Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad in Revision No. 1694 of 2015 (Shiv Murat v. State of U.P. and others) arising from proceedings under Section 161 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 (Act).

2. Petitioner is Bhumidhar of plot No. 1112/1260 ad-measuring 0.0460 hectare who applied for exchange of the land under Section 161 of the Act with plot No. 100 ad-measuring 0.087 hectare recorded USAR, vesting in the Gaon Sabha of Village Virbhanpur, Pargana Bela Daulatabad, Tehsil Mehnagar, District Azamgarh. The Assistant Collector on receiving the application, after obtaining report from the Halka Lekhpal, the Revenue Inspector and on the recommendation of the Tehsildar, passed an order on 29 May 2012 approving exchange of the plots. Aggrieved, the District Government Counsel (DGC) preferred a revision on behalf of the State before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh which was allowed on 15 May 2016. Aggrieved, petitioner went in revision before the Board of Revenue which has been rejected by the impugned order affirming the order passed by the Commissioner.

3. In the impugned order, it has been noted that the Assistant Collector before recommending exchange of the plot vesting in the Gaon Sabha, no permission or resolution by the Land Management Committee approving the recommendation was passed, as such, it was held that the recommendation was void and not in terms of Section 161 and the Rules.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the plain reading of Section 161 and Rules 144 to 146 of the Rules: (i) no resolution of the Land Management Committee is required; (ii) the order of the Sub Divisional Officer granting permission for exchange could not have been assailed in revision, the remedy available was to file recall/restoration application; (iii) under Section 28 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Lekhpal is the Secretary of the Land Management Committee, therefore, on the report the of Lekhpal exchange can be effected and would tantamount to consent of the Land Management Committee.

5. In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel would submit: (i) the plot sought for exchange is recorded as manure pit (Khad Ka Gaddha), therefore, being a public utility land under Section 132 cannot be exchanged; (ii) admittedly, there is no notice to the Gaon Sabha which is mandatory and without resolution of the Land Management Committee approving the exchange Sub Divisional Officer could not have passed the order merely on the report of the Lekhpal; (iii) under Section 127B the panel lawyer of the State/Land Management Committee can maintain the revision on behalf of the State; (iv) Section 161 does not confer any legal right upon the applicant seeking exchange.

6. Rival submissions fall for consideration.

7. The question for determination is as to whether the land vesting in the Gaon Sabha can be exchanged without notice to the Land Management Committee and without there being a resolution of the Gaon Sabha approving the exchange.

8. Section 161 of the Act provides for exchange. A bhumidhar may exchange with (a) any other bhumidhar land held by him or (b) land vesting in any Gaon Sabha or local authority under Section 117. The proviso to Section 161 requires prior permission of the Assistant Collector upon being satisfied that conditions of rental value of the respective land calculated at hereditary rates is not more than 10 percent of the lower rental value. On exchange being made in accordance with sub-section (1) shall confer same rights in the land received in exchange as the bhumidhar had in the land given in exchange.

9. Rule 144 requires that an application for permission to make an exchange shall contain the detail of khasra number of the plots which the applicant wishes to receive and of th