JUDGMENT J.B. Singh, M. - These are two connection references in revision No. 29 and 30 respectively made by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 25th February, 1983 recommending to set aside orders dated 20th November, 1982 passed in suit under section 229-B and in another case under section 161 of Act, I of 1951 ordering to amend the plaint of the suit under section 229-B and setting aside order permitting exchange dated 31st August, 1979 of Plots No. 605 and 1376 of the applicant with the Gaon Sabha land Plot No. 437-M which was allotted to Khiloni on 22nd October, 1967 which was cancelled in suo motu action on 16th October, 1969 by S.D.O. and Khiloni had filed the suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 which was remanded by the Board to determine whether the plaintiff O.P. was entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the Act or not. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records regarding both the references together. This judgment shall govern both of them. Its copy shall be placed on the connection reference file. 3. It has been argued that the order of exchange have become final no appeal was filed, therefore, the trial court acted illegally in allowing the application of O.P., and setting aside order of exchange and that the order of amendment was also illegal passed after conclusion of evidence of the parties after the case was remanded by the Board ; that Khiloni was not a party to the proceedings under Section 161. His application was not maintainable and was beyond time, therefore, the recommendation should be accepted. 4. It has been argued in reply that the patta of the O.P., was wrongly cancelled, therefore, the suit for declaration was filed which was pending and the order of amendment was proper and legal and was within jurisdiction; that the lease plot of the opposite party was wrongly to be exchanged without making him a party and his application under Section 151 of the C.P.C., was maintainable and was within time from the date of knowledge, therefore, the recommendations in both the cases should not be accepted. 5. Both the orders passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside and I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. 5. Both the orders passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside and I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. Because when the Board had remanded the suit under Section 229-B with the direction to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of Section 122-B (4-B) or not there was no need of ordering suo motu after the evidence of the parties was closed for amending the plaint as no issue was required and the order of the Board was to be complied with. 6. The order passed in the case of exchange although under Section 151 was moved was also unwarranted and illegal unless the suit of the plaintiff was decided as directed by the Board because only then the plaintiff could have become entitled for moving that application as only then interest in the land of his patta should have revived and he would have been entitled to get the order of exchange which had become final to which the plaintiff was not a party no party had filed appeal against that order of exchange. Therefore, both the orders passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside and the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit for declaration as directed by the Board then to decide the application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, according to the result in the case of exchange. 7. In view of the above, both the revision applications are allowed and both the order in both the cases under section 229-B and under section 161 of Act, I of 1951. Dated 28th November, 1982 passed by the trial court are hereby set aside. 8. Let the trial court's file be returned to it atonce for necessary action.