JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Board of Revenue (Respondent No. 2) in Revision No. 3097 of 2018 and the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3) in Case No. 09244 of 2018 in a proceeding for exchange of land under Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in brevity the Code, 2006).

3. Facts culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that plot No. 524 area 0.150 hectare and plot No. 523 (kha) area 0.053 hectare, belongs to the Gaon Sabha (Respondent No. 4), are situated adjacent to a school namely Nageshwar Prasad Shyam Sunder Shikshan Sanstha allegedly run by the petitioners. Considering the suitability of the aforesaid plots to be used as a playground for school children, the petitioners, who are the recorded tenure holders of plot No. 318 area 0.466 hectare situated in Village Suichak, Tehsil Rajatalab, District Varanasi, have moved an application dated 15/17.5.2017 (Annexure-4) under Section 101 of the Code, 2006, requesting for exchange of their plot No. 318 area 0.203 hectare (out of total area 0.466 hectare) with the plots of the Gaon Sabha i.e. plot Nos. 524 and 523(Kha). The Gaon Sabha, in turn, has passed resolution dated 4.6.2017 (Annexure-3) accepting the proposal of the petitioners for exchange of the land, as mentioned above. It appears that on the application for exchange, the Tehsil authorities have submitted their report thrice in favour of exchange which are annexed as Annexures-5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. During pendency of the application for exchange, an objection dated 27.6.2018 (Annexure-9) purported to have been filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha through the Standing Counsel (Revenue). The petitioners have filed their replication dated 25.7.2018 (Annexure-10), inter alia, raising the question of maintainability of the aforesaid objection dated 27.6.2018.

4. Exchange application moved by the petitioners was rejected by respondent No. 3, vide order dated 30.10.2018 (Annexure-12), basically on account of difference of valuation between the plots which were sought to be exchanged. Having been aggrieved with the order passed by respondent No. 3, a revision petition (Annexure-13) has been preferred by the petitioners which was dismissed as well, affirming the order passed by respondent No. 3, vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure-14) passed by respondent No. 2. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have moved an application for exchange and a resolution dated 4.6.2017 was passed by the Gaon Sabha accepting the proposal for exchange. On the aforesaid application, the Tehsil authorities have submitted their report dated 29.6.2017, 30.7.2017 and 24.8.2017 respectively. He has questioned the authority of Vijay Kumar Pandey, Standing Counsel (Revenue) who has illegally filed objection dated 27.6.2018 whereas Gaon Sabha has not passed any resolution as required under Section 62 of the Code, 2006, authorizing any person to contest the aforesaid matter. Detail provision, as enunciated under Appendix-II of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (in brevity Rules, 2016) has not been followed in filing the said objection. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have illegally discarded the exchange, only relying upon the objection filed by the Standing Counsel (Revenue), without considering the reports submitted by the Lekhpal, Naib Tehsildar and Kanoongo. Next submission is that the trial Court has illegally emphasized the difference of valuation of plots which were subject-matter of exchange proceeding, whereas in all the reports submitted by the revenue authorities no such difference of valuation has bee