Pathak, C.J.:- This is an application under Rule 6 of the Assam High Court's (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 1954, directed against the judgment and order dated 6.4.77 passed by the District Council Court, Aizawl in C. A. No. 2 of 1977 confirming the judgment and order dated 10.12.76 passed by the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl in Heir ship Case No. 22 of 1975. 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition is that in 1968 Bawithuama, a member of the Salvation Army respondent No. 2, on his way to Silchar had a talk with Chhinga, father of the present petitioner and Laibata, respondent No. 1, elder brother of the petitioner at Kolasib regarding the exchange of Chhinga's house at Zemabawk with the Salvation Army Church at Zemabawk and that a sum of Rs. 300/- would be added in the bargain by the Salvation Army Corps of Zemabawk. It a also found from the impugned judgment and order that as it was then a time when some villages were grouped and houses of grouped villages were dismantled and shifted elsewhere by the order of the Government and in fear of such contingency the proposal for exchange was agreed to by Chhinga, the father of the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Accordingly Rs. 30U/-was also received by respondent No. 1 through his wife in 1968. The house under Chhinga's pass was dismantled by the Salvation Army in 1968 and in its place a church was built in 1969 which has been occupied till today. The petitioner claimed the same house site to be his property as per his father's request and as such he totally rejected the claim of exchange purported to have been made between the father of the petitioner and respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2. It is averred in the petition that in December, 1968, when the Salvation Army started dismantling the house property, the petitioner objected but no heed was given to his objection. It is also found in the petition that in 1975 he obtained an Heirship Certificate in respect of his father's property and then filed a suit in the Subordinate District Council Court, Aizawl claiming the said house property exchanged with respondent No. 2. The suit was dismissed. Against that he preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, which ended without success. 3. The suit was dismissed. Against that he preferred an appeal before the District Council Court, which ended without success. 3. From the perusal of the impugned judgment it transpires that he (the petitioner) was aware of the fact of the exchange as far back as in 1968 when the demolition work was started by the respondent No. 2. Even after that he did not take any step till 1975; it was only in 1975 he woke up and filed the Heir ship Case, as aforesaid, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit, The Appellate Court has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and has given the concurrent finding as recorded by the Trial Court that the exchange was competently made in 1968 between the parties. 4. Mr. P.K. Barua, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raises a very substantial question of law that the exchange itself being a transfer, is prohibited under Section 3 of the Mizo District (Transfer of Land) Act, 1964, here in after referred to as 'the Act', which reads as follows : "3. Control of transfer of land.-No land under the District Council shall be sold, mortgaged, leased, bartered gifted or otherwise transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal, or by a non-tribal to another non-tribal except with the previous permission of the Executive Committee : Provided that reason shall be recorded for any refusal of transfer from a tribal to a non-tribal or from non -tribal to another non-tribal : Provided further, that no permission will be necessary in the case of a lease of a building on rent." 5. After going through both the judgments and orders of the Courts below, I do not find any material that such a plea was ever taken by the petitioner in the Courts below that subject-matter was not transferable without the permission of the Executive Committee as enjoined under Sec­tion 3 of the aforesaid Act. If this matter would have been agitated before the Court, below the Respondents would have been in a position to produce or to make averment as to whether in fact there was any permission as required under Section 3 of the Act for the exchange of the property in question. If this matter would have been agitated before the Court, below the Respondents would have been in a position to produce or to make averment as to whether in fact there was any permission as required under Section 3 of the Act for the exchange of the property in question. That being the position, it is difficult to entertain the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provision of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, there is a complete prohibition for the transfer unless the requirements prescribing by Section 3 are fulfilled. It is found from the factual situation appearing from the impugned judgment that after the exchange, the house site has already been utilized by constructing a church by Respondent No. 2 which was in the complete knowledge of the petitioner and even then he allowed the Respondent No. 2 to construct the church by spending money for the construction of work without taking any steps. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and also for the rea­sons stated above, this petition is of no merit and accord­ingly the same is rejected. The Rule is discharged. However, there is no order as to costs.