JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 11th October, 1969 and the order of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated 14th February, 1966. The petitioners made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for the exchange of their land with that of the Gaon Sabha. The Sub-Divisional Officer after making an enquiry and obtaining the report of Tahsildar allowed the exchange. The Gaon Sabha later on repudiated its consent for the exchange, it filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of exchange was set aside. On an appeal by the petitioners the Board of Revenue upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the petitioner's application for the exchange of land. 2. The main question involved in the present case is whether the Gaon Sabha was entitled under the law to exchange the land which had been earmarked for a public purpose by the Consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. It is admitted by the parties that the plots Nos. 161 and 185 situated in village Pirauli had been earmarked by the Consolidation Authorities for the purposes of pasture land, so that the residents of the locality could graze their cattles on that land. The petitioners made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer for the exchange of the said plots with their agricultural plot No. 394. According to them their plot No. 394 was allotted to them under the Consolidation proceedings, which was situate at a considerable distance from their house and the plots Nos. 161 and 185 belonging to the Gaon Sabha were situated quite near to their house. The area and the rental value of their plot was not lower to that of the said plot of Gaon Sabha. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha gave his consent for the exchange. The Sub-Divisional Officer obtained report from Tahsildar and granted permission for the exchange. On appeal by the Gaon Sabha, the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to exchange the plots which had been set out for pasture land by the Consolidation Authorities. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer obtained report from Tahsildar and granted permission for the exchange. On appeal by the Gaon Sabha, the Additional Commissioner as well as the Board of Revenue held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to exchange the plots which had been set out for pasture land by the Consolidation Authorities. 3. Under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , a Bhumidhar or a sirdar is authorised to exchange land with any other Bhumidhar or sirdar or with Gaon Sabha or local authority, if such land is vested in it under Section 117 of the Act. According to the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 161, such exchange cannot be made except with the permission of an Assistant Collector who is empowered to refuse permission, if the difference between the rental value of the land given in exchange and of the land received in exchange calculated hereditary rates, is more than ten percent of the lower rental value. A Gaon Sabha is, therefore, authorised to exchange its land with any bhumidhar or sirdar provided the permission for such exchange is granted by the Assistant Collector and there is no difference of rental value to the extent of more than ten per cent. In the present case, it is admitted that there was no difference of more than ten per cent in the rental value. There is, however, a controversy between the parties as to whether the Assistant Collector had granted permission to the Gaon Sabha for the exchange of the plots. The Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, both have held that there was no such permission. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Sub-Divisional Officer who was an Assistant Collector by his order dated 19th June, 1965 had granted the permission. In my opinion, it is not necessary to decide this controversy because even if it be assumed that permission as contemplated by the proviso to clause (b) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 161 was given by the Assistant Collector, the petitioner cannot succeed. 4. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that when scheme of Consolidation in a village is finalised, land shall be ear-marked for public purpose. (1) of Section 161 was given by the Assistant Collector, the petitioner cannot succeed. 4. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 provides that when scheme of Consolidation in a village is finalised, land shall be ear-marked for public purpose. Under Sec. 8-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, statement of principles is required to contain details of the areas ear-marked for extention of abadi site for Harijans and landless persons in the unit, and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed. Under Rule 24-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, framed under Section 54 of the Act, public purposes for which the area should be ear-marked are prescribed. According to this rule in addition to the reservation of land for extension of Abadi including the areas for abadi sites for Harijans and landless persons, land may be ear-marked according to the local requirements for the public purposes, viz : manure pits, roads, pasture land, thrashing floor, play grounds, primary and other schools, hospitals, panchayat ghars, cremation and graveyards, water channels etc. Under Section 19 of the Act, tenure holders are required to contribute land for their holdings towards the land which is earmarked for a public purpose as required by the Act and the Rules. The land so set out by the consolidation authorities for the public purposes mentioned in the Act and the Rules, vests in the Gaon Sabha under Sec. 29-C of the Act and such land cannot be utilised for any other purpose. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that once the land earmarked for a public purpose vests in the Gaon Sabha, it has all the powers which a Gaon Sabha enjoys under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to dispose of or exchange such land according to its own will subject to the restrictions contained in the Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules. Under Section 117 of the Act, State Government is empowered to issue a notification declaring that from a particular date the land, forest, trees, tanks etc. situate in a village shall vest in a Gaon Sabha and upon such vesting the Gaon Sabha is entitled to exercise all rights and, powers conferred upon it under the Rules framed thereunder. The powers of the Gaon Sabha to manage and administer such land are quite wide. situate in a village shall vest in a Gaon Sabha and upon such vesting the Gaon Sabha is entitled to exercise all rights and, powers conferred upon it under the Rules framed thereunder. The powers of the Gaon Sabha to manage and administer such land are quite wide. It may let out such land for cultivation or for other purposes, it may also exchange its land with any other land of a Bhumidhar or a sirdar. It is no doubt correct that under Sub-sec (1) of Sec. 29-C of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the land ear-marked in the final consolidation scheme for a public purpose vests in the Gaon Sabha and further Sub-sec. (2) of the said section declares that the Gaon Sabha in respect of the land so vested is entitled to exercise all the powers conferred and perform all the duties imposed on it in respect of a land vested in it under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Sec. 29-C prior to its amendment by the U.P. Amending Act No. XXI of 1966, was as under :- "29-C - Vesting of land contributed for public purposes- (1) The land contributed for public purposes under this Act shall, with effect from the date on which the tenureholders became entitled to enter into possession of the chak allotted to them under the provisions of this Act, as amended from time to time, vest and be always deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha and shall be utilised for the purpose for which it was ear-marked in the final Consolidation Scheme, or, in case of failure of that purpose, for such other purposes as may be prescribed. (2) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) , the Gaon Sabha shall, in respect of the land so vested in it, exercise all the powers conferred, and perform all the duties imposed on it in respect of land vested in it under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. or the Rules made thereunder. (3) All land vested in every Gaon Sabha under this Act on the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 shall subject to all conditions and incidents attaching thereto vest in the Gaon Sabha constituted for the circle of the Gaon Samaj." 6. The opening part of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 29-C is significant. (3) All land vested in every Gaon Sabha under this Act on the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samities and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 shall subject to all conditions and incidents attaching thereto vest in the Gaon Sabha constituted for the circle of the Gaon Samaj." 6. The opening part of Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 29-C is significant. The vesting of the land ear-marked under the Consolidation scheme for a public purpose in the Gaon Sabha is subject to the provisions of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 29-C. The Gaon Sabha is entitled to exercise powers and duties imposed on it under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the rules framed thereunder subject to the provisions contained in Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 29-C, which declares that the land which is ear-marked in the final Consolidation scheme for a public purpose "shall be utilised for the purpose for which it was ear-marked" or in the case of failure of that purpose, such other purpose was ear-marked or in the case of failure of that purpose, such other purpose fore, limited by Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 29-C. 7. The Gaon Sabha can administer, manage and exercise all its powers which are conferred upon it under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed thereunder in respect of such land but it cannot divert that land to any other use. The Gaon Sabha has to utilise the land for that very purpose for which it was ear-marked in the final Consolidation scheme. The land which is ear-marked for a public purpose under the Consolidation Scheme is generally contributed by the tenure holders of the village. The purposes for which the land is ear-marked have been enumerated in Rule 24-A of Consolidation of Holdings Rules, which show that such purposes are for the common good and welfare of the village community. The Legislature thought it fit that the interest and welfare of the village community should be safeguarded and preserved and, therefore, it placed a restriction on the right of the Gaon Sabha in declaring that such land shall be utilised for the public purpose for which it was ear-marked, and to none else. The Legislature thought it fit that the interest and welfare of the village community should be safeguarded and preserved and, therefore, it placed a restriction on the right of the Gaon Sabha in declaring that such land shall be utilised for the public purpose for which it was ear-marked, and to none else. In case, where the public purpose for which the land was ear-marked in the final Consolidation scheme fails, the land can be utilised for such other purpose as may be prescribed under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The various public purposes for which such land can be utilised have been enumerated in Rule 24-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It is, therefore, clear that the land so ear-marked in the final Consolidation Scheme for pasture land, the Gaon Sabha was not authorised or entitled to utilise or to allow others to utilise that land for cultivation. In case the necessity for a pasture land in the village ceased to exist, the Gaon Sabha is required to utilise the land for any other public purpose set out in Rule 24-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It can, however, in no circumstance let out the land for cultivation or allow it to be diverted to some other use not prescribed under the Act or the Rules. 8. Sec. 29-C was amended by the U.P. Amending Act No. XXI of 1966. The amended section runs as under :- "29-C VESTING OF LAND CONTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. (1) The land contributed for public purposes under this Act shall, with effect from the date on which the tenure-holders became entitled to enter into possession of the chak allotted to them under the provisions of this Act as amended from time to time vest and be always deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha and shall be utilised for the purpose for which it was ear-marked in the final Consolidation Scheme, or, in case of failure of that purpose, for such other purposes as may be prescribed. (2) The provisions of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such land as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of a declaration made by the State Government under Sub-sec. (2) The provisions of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such land as if the land had vested in the Gaon Sabha by virtue of a declaration made by the State Government under Sub-sec. (1) of that section, and as if the declaration were made subject to the conditions respecting utilisation specified in Sub-sec. (1) of this section." 9. By amending Sec. 29-C in the manner indicated above, the Legislature has made explicit what was implicit in the unamended section prior to 1966. Under the amended section the land ear-marked in the final consolidation scheme for a public purpose shall vest in the Gaon Sabha and it shall exercise all the powers to which it is entitled under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act. Sub-sec. (2) of the amended section, however, places restriction on the powers of the Gaon Sabha. According to this Stib-section, the land so ear-marked in the final consolidation scheme for a public purpose shall vest in the Gaon Sabha as if a notification under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been issued in respect of that land by the State Government vesting that land in the Gaon Sabha. Such vesting shall be subject to the provisions contained in Sub-sec. (1) in so far it enjoins upon the Gaon Sabha that such land shall be utilised for only such public purpose for which it was ear-marked in the final consolidation scheme. Under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act State Government while issuing a notification under the section is authorised under the first proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of the said section to make a declaration regarding vesting of land in the Gaon Sabha with such exception and conditions as it may specify in the notification. Amended Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 29-C of the Act declares that the condition regarding the utilisation of the land ear-marked for a public purpose shall be deemed to be there as if the State Government while issuing a notification under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had placed such restrictions in its notification vesting the land in the Gaon Sabha. It is, therefore, clear that the Gaon Sabha has no authority in law to divert the use of a land ear-marked for a public purpose. 10. In the present case it is admitted that the petitioners' land was agricultural land whereupon he was carrying on cultivation. He wanted to exchange his land with that of the Gaon Sabha which had vested in it under Sub-sec. 29-C. The land of the Gaon Sabha had been ear-marked for a public purpose namely pasture land under the final consolidation scheme. If the Gaon Sabha exchanged that land with that of the petitioners' land, the land earmarked for pasture land was to be used by the petitioners for cultivation. The Gaon Sabha has no jurisdiction or authority in law to agree to any such exchange, as after the exchange the land set out for a public purpose by the Consolidation Authorities was going to be used for some other purpose. The Gaon Sabha, in my opinion, therefore, had no authority in law to exchange the land in question with that of the petitioners' land. The Board of Revenue and the Additional Commissioner rightly held that the Gaon Sabha was not authorised to divert the land to some other use. There is thus no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, with costs.