JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 2, 1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. An application was filed by Gangotri Singh under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act seeking exchange of certain land belonging to himself with other land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. He claimed that the previous Collector of Mirzapur had given him an assurance that he would be given the land in lieu of his own plot which he had permitted to be used for the purpose of construction of Harijan Abadi. 3. The application was contested by the Gaon Sabha but the learned S.D.O. passed orders approving the exchange. 4. The appeal was however, allowed by the Additional Commissioner who took the view that the exchange contemplated by Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act must have the consent of both the parties involved. Since the Gaon Sabha did not agree to the proposal, there could be no exchange under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited a ruling reported in 1963 R.D. 101 where the Board of Revenue has held that exchange under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act need not require the agreement of both the parties. 6. Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act states that a Bhumidhar or Sirdar may exchange with another Bhumidhar or Sirdar or Gaon Sabha or local authority land provided that in no exchange will be made except with the permission of an Assistant Collector who is bound to give the permission if the difference between the rental value of the land given and received in exchange is more than 10%. The Section itself does not specifically state that the exchange must be voluntary from both sides. However, the legal meaning of the word exchange is clear. There is legally no exchange as such unless both the parties agree. If one of the parties is forcibly deprived of his land, and he is compelled to accept other land which he does not want it cannot be said that a legal exchange has been effected. 7. The practical consequences of a different interpretation are easy to imagine. There is legally no exchange as such unless both the parties agree. If one of the parties is forcibly deprived of his land, and he is compelled to accept other land which he does not want it cannot be said that a legal exchange has been effected. 7. The practical consequences of a different interpretation are easy to imagine. It would imply that any one owning land within the limits of Uttar Pradesh could forcibly exchange his own land with that of another situated anywhere else within the State, subject only to the condition that the difference in the rental value of the two pieces of land in exchange could not be more than 10 per cent of the lower rental value. An agriculturist having land of little or no productivity could force an exchange on a cultivator who might have made heavy investment in the past on his land and was deriving good income from the same. It is true that such a so called exchange would not be likely to last because immediately after the transaction had been forced upon itself the unwilling party could immediately move an application under Section 161 of the Act seeking a re-exchange. 8. It is obvious from the above discussion that the exchange contemplated by Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act must be voluntarily entered into by both the parties concerned. 9. The appeal stands dismissed. 10. This is without reference to the moral claim that the appellant may have to any land in the village in view of any assurance that might have been given to him by the Collector of Mirzapur. He is at liberty to seek such remedy as may still be open to him from the authorities of State.