JUDGMENT :

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad in Revision no.1124 of 2017. Also the order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is sought to be quashed by which application for exchange of land has been rejected.

2. The petitioners claim to the Bhumidhar of plot No.17 ad-measuring 0.357 hectare and Plot No.19 ad-measuring 0.092 hectare. Both the aforesaid plots of land are stated to be recorded as grove land. It is stated that plot No.18 ad-measuring 0.104 hectare is recorded in the name of a school 'Purv Madhyamik Vidyalay, Mauza-Tarsara, Pargana-Hasangarh, Tehsil-Iglas, District-Aligarh'. Other than that plot, plot no.21 having an area of 0.057 hectare is also recorded in the name of the aforesaid school.

3. It is stated that the building of the school was constructed long back on plot no.19, which is the plot belonging to the petitioners, instead of plot No.18. Therefore, under the provisions of section 101 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, ¹ [Code, 2006], the petitioners filed an application on 11.03.2016 before the Sub Divisional Officer for exchange of plot no.19 with plot no. 18 in terms of the prayer made in the application. A report of the Tahsildar/Lekhpal was called for, in which report it was stated that the circle rate and the nature of land of both the plot nos.18 and 19 are the same. However, by the impugned order dated 24.4.2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the application for exchange. Against the aforesaid order the petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the order dated 23.2.2021.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 101 of the Code, 2006, deserves to the allowed particularly when the revenue authorities have reported to the respondent No.2 regarding the same valuation of the plots of the land sought to be exchanged. It is contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer based her order on a defunct Government Order dated 10.11.2014 that was issued under Section 161 of the repealed U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, ² [Act, 1950]. It is contended that the sub-section (2) of section 101 of the Code, 2006 provides for certain eventualities that may authorize the competent authority to refuse permission for exchange. In this case too, the Sub-Divisional Officer refused the exchange but the ground for refusal of exchange is not relatable to any ground appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 101 of the Code, 2006. It is urged that since the valuation of the plots of land sought to be exchanged has been reported by the revenue inspector/ tehsildar to be identical therefore, the refusal of the Sub-Divisional Officer to permit exchange is arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon a judgement of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of C/M Vishambharnath Janta Inter College and another vs State of U.P. & others, 2019 (142) RD 810.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents have drawn the attention of the Court to Section 59 of the Code, 2006 pertaining to entrustment of land, to contend that the land which stands entrusted to the Gaon Sabha cannot be claimed by the petitioners for exchange as of right.

6. Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 has drawn attention to sub-section (2) of Section 9-A of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972, ⁴ [Basic Education Act] to contend that the property of the Uttar Pradesh Board of Basic Education, comprising of plot nos. 18 and 21, stand vested in the Gram Panchayat and any transfer by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or otherwise of any building, property or assets is prohibited. He further urged that in view of Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of section 101, the land being reserved for planned use of the G