JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This second appeal under Section 531 of U.P. Act I of 1951 has been filed against the decree and order dated 5-1-84 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, dismissing Appeal no. 56 16/10 of 1982-83 and confirming the decree and order dated 21-5-82 of the Assistant Collector First Class, Banda, decreeing the suit no. 110. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the Municipal Board of Chitrakut Dham, Karvi, district Banda, filed a suit under Section 64 of Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act read with Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951, before the Assistant Collector First Class, Karvi, alleging that the land in suit belonged to the notified area, Karvi, and thereafter the land was transferred to the Municipal Board, Karvi, that defendant no. 1 was earlier a member of the Municipal Board, Chitrakut Dham, Karvi, and during his tenure of membership, he by misusing his official position, got a resolution passed on 28-4-69 for getting the land in suit transferred in his name, that thereafter he got his name recorded against the plot in dispute, that the land is valuable and is of public utility, that when the Municipal Board came to know of this transfer of land through misuse of official position by defendant no. 1, it rescinded the resolution dated 28-4-69 through another resolution dated 30-6-74, that this resolution was confirmed by the Collector, Banda. The Municipal Board applied for the expunction of the name of defendant no. 1 from the land in dispute. The trial court decreed the suit on 21-9-82. An appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, who also dismissed the appeal on 5-1-84. The instant second appeal has been filed against that order of the learned Additional Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that plot no. 517 was a Bhumidhari plot of appellant having an area of 7 Biswas and respondent no. 1 proposed to take this land in 1969 for construction of a road, later on named as Sathe Road Gange Ji Marg, that the said respondent offered to give its sirdari plot no. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that plot no. 517 was a Bhumidhari plot of appellant having an area of 7 Biswas and respondent no. 1 proposed to take this land in 1969 for construction of a road, later on named as Sathe Road Gange Ji Marg, that the said respondent offered to give its sirdari plot no. 167, area 7 Biswas to compensate the appellant, that a proposal to this effect was referred to the Collector by resolution dated 28-4-69 and recommendation dated 28-5-69 by the Chairman, was accepted by the Collector on 18-8-69 and thereafter possession over respective plots was changed, that plot no. 517 became part of the said road and was amalgamated in the highway, that the suit of respondent no. 1 was instituted on colourful grounds and the courts below erred completely in law in decreeing the suit, that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on its real cause of action, that it was not possible to decree the suit unless the appellant's plot was returned to him in its original condition, that the law of estoppel forbids the maintainability of such a claim, and that once the Municipal Board agreed to exchange the plots it could not go back without the consent of the appellant. 5. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Municipal Board has power to rescind its resolution without notice after a period of six months or can also rescind its resolution within a period of six months of its passing after notice to the parties, that no instrument of exchange was executed by the Municipal Board in favour of the appellant and hence this exchange was violative of Section 124 U.P. Municipalities Act, that if the exchange is treated to be one under Section 161, then the exchange was also not proper as it took place without the permission of the Assistant Collector. 6. From the evidence on record it is evident that the land in dispute belonged to the Notified Area Karvi and thereafter to the Municipal Board, Karvi. This land came to the appellant in exchange with his plot no. 517 (area 7 Biswas) situate at Sathe Road, Bankat. Municipal Board. Chitrakoot Dham Karvi passed a resolution on 28-4-69 for exchange of plot no. This land came to the appellant in exchange with his plot no. 517 (area 7 Biswas) situate at Sathe Road, Bankat. Municipal Board. Chitrakoot Dham Karvi passed a resolution on 28-4-69 for exchange of plot no. 517 of the appellant which was taken for the construction of the road with plot no. 167(7 Biswas) belonging to the Municipal Board. The Collector, Banda, approved this exchange on 18-8-69. Thereafter the Municipal Board passed another resolution on 30-6-72 rescinding its resolution dated 28-4-69 and on the basis of this resolution, Municipal Board Karvi claimed that no exchange of plots now existed between the parties, i.e., the appellant and the Municipal Board, and that this resolution had been accepted by the Collector vide his order dated 28-9-73. There is no doubt that the Municipal Board can rescind its resolutions. But, in the instant case, the resolution dated 30-6-72 amounts to annulment of the orders passed by the Collector approving the exchange on 28-8-69. 7. This exchange of plots took place under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Section 64 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The provisions regarding exchange of plots are contained in Section 161 of U.P. Act I of 1951. The provisions of this section are applicable in respect to the area to which U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1956 applies, as provided in Section 64 of U.P. Act No. IX of 1957, which reads as under : "64. Application of provisions of Chapters VIII and X of U.P. Act I of 1951 to agricultural areas. - The provisions of Chapter VIII and X of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and of the rules framed thereunder shall apply to agricultural areas acquired under this Act, but the State Govt, may by order published in the official 'Gazette', make such adaptation, modification, alteration or exception not affecting the substance as may in its opinion appear necessary and any such adaptation, modification, alteration or exception shall not be questioned, in any court of law." Thus, the exchange of plots took place under Section 161 of U.P. Act I of 1951 and it was approved by the Collector who is also Assistant Collector First Class. The relevant Section 161 reads as under :- "161. The relevant Section 161 reads as under :- "161. Exchange.-(1) A bhumidhar may exchange with- (a) any other bhumidhar land held by him, or (b) any Gaon Sabha or local authority, lands for the time being vested in it under Section 117 : Provided that no exchange shall be made except with the permission of an Assistant Collector who shall refuse permission if the difference between the rental value of land given in exchange and of land received in exchange calculated at hereditary rates is more than 10 per cent of the lower rental value. (I-A) Where the Assistant Collector permits exchange he shall also order the relevant annual registers to be corrected accordingly. (2) On exchange made in accordance with sub-section (1) they shall have same rights in the land so received in exchange as they had in the land given in exchange." Once the Assistant Collector had approved the exchange, it was not open to the Municipal Board to get it cancelled by passing a resolution rescinding the earlier resolution on the basis of which the exchange had taken place. The learned counsel for the respondent also submits that there is no application under Section 161 moved by Harish Chandra and as such this exchange could not be said to have taken place, under Section 161 of Act I of 1951. Mere procedural irregularity cannot be said to be fatal to the fact of exchange that has taken place in reality. It was for the Collector to have considered the procedural omissions, if any, and it was not open for the Municipal Board to challenge the order regarding exchange of plots by Collector dated 28-8-69 in the way it has done. 8. So far as Section 124 of the U.P. Municipalities Act is concerned, it cannot override the provisions of Section 161 of the U.P. Act I of 1951. It was an inside act of the Municipal Board, and if it has not acted in accordance with Section 124, meaning thereby that no instrument of exchange was executed by the Municipal Board in favour of Harish Chandra, this inaction of the Municipal Board is not a ground which could be said to be a material irregularity committed in the exchange of the plots. The Municipal Board has no right to move the revenue court for declaration of its rights, as the exchange of the plots has taken place and the revenue court acted within its frame work when it allowed the correction of papers. The proper course open to the Municipal Board was to move the appellate court for cancellation of the exchange which took place under Section 161 of the Act. 9. I am, therefore, of the view that the present suit filed by the Municipal Board was not maintainable and, therefore, the decrees passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this second appeal is allowed and the orders of both the courts below are set aside.