1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lambhuwa, rejecting his application filed under Section 100 of the U.P. Revenue Code for exchange of land.
3. It appears from a perusal of the order impugned that the petitioner is in occupation of Gata No.829 ad-measuring 0.0510 hectare which is recorded as "khalihan" and plot no.812 ad-measuring 0.0130 hectare recorded as manure pit. When proceedings for eviction of the petitioner were initiated, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.2957 (M/S) of 2021, saying that he is willing to exchange his land situated in the same village with the land of khalihan threshing floor/ khaad ka gaddha 'manure pit'. This Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the respondent that in case petitioner move an appropriate application for exchange of land, the same may be considered and orders be passed on merits thereof. It is in pursuance of this order passed by this Court that the petitioner's application has been considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Lambhuwa. It has been recorded in the order impugned that the petitioner has offered plot no.859 ad-measuring 0.1140 hectare, 495-ka ad-measuring 0.140 hectare, plot no.496 ad-measuring 0.1960 hetare, and plot no.855 Ja ad-measuring 0.3450 hectare situated in the same village wherein the petitioner has 1/6th share on the basis of family settlement.
4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has called for a report from the Revenue officials of the area concerned and it found therefrom that the petitioner is not the sole occupant/ tenure holder of the plots offered by him. There have been no formal partition between all the co-tenure holders of the property in question being offered by the petitioner in exchange. It has also been found that the five plots in question that have been offered by the petitioner are not adjacent/ contiguous to each other and the are spread out in the Village Gopinathpur and would be of no fruitful purpose for establishing threshing floor and manure pit. The application of the petitioner was rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has taken a ground which is not mentioned in Section 101 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, for rejection of offer of exchange made by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out sub-section 1 of Section 101 and sub-section 2 of Section 101 to point out that the only factor which has to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for exchange is that the land in question should be of equivalent value or not less than 10% of value of land for which exchange has been offered and the area of that land should not be less than 25% of the land for which exchange has been offered.
7. Sri Mohan Singh, on the other hand, has pointed out sub clause (d) of sub-section 2 of Section 101 and also read out sub-section 3 of Section 101, wherein it has been stated that land in question should not have been reserved for planned use or should not be land in which bhumidhari rights cannot be accrued. No person can exchange his undivided holding except where such exchange is between two or more co-sharers.
8. This Court finds no good ground to show interference in the order dated 06.08.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
9. This petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Rahul