JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the order dated 1-12-78 passed by Sri V. S. Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in Appeal no. 153 of 1977-78. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s. Techno Tower Pvt. Ltd., through its Chairman Shri Sher Singh, son of late Lala Babu Ram, made an application for an exchange of plots nos. 299, 300, 301, 302 (total area 7.49 acres) situate in village Karari, Pargana and district Jhansi, with Gaon Sabha plots nos. 6, 10, 12, 13 and 14 (total area 32.11 acres). The learned Trial court called for a report on 21-8-78 of the said application from Tahsildar Jhansi. Tahsildar, Jhansi made a report to the Sub-Divisional Officer that the land for which an application for exchange had been given was not in the name of the applicant but from the report of the Sub-Registrar, Jhansi it was apparent that the land had been purchased by him on 17-8-78, that an application for mutation was filed on 23-8-78, and that action in the matter should be taken after obtaining the opinion of 'he District Government Counsel (Revenue). The trial court approved the exchange on 24-8-78. Against that order an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner by the State of U.P. which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on 1-12-78 holding that no illegality was committed in the order passed for the exchange of Gaon Sabha land with the land of the applicant. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned D. G. C. (R) arguing on behalf of the State of U.P. submits that the procedure prescribed under Rule 145 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules had not been followed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, that the exchange was permitted without calling upon the parties to show cause why the exchange should not be made, that no such show-cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer accompanied by a copy of the application moved by the applicant Sher Singh, that M/s. Techno Tower was not the bhumidhar of the land, that no mutation was ordered in the revenue records, and that the exchange was permitted against the provisions of Section 161 of U.P. Act I of 1951. 5. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the land stood in the name of one Narayan Rao who sold it out to M/s. Techno Tower, that the rental value of land given in exchange and that the difference between rental value of the land received in exchange and of land given in exchange if calculated at hereditary rates was less than 10 per cent of the lower rental value, that statements of Pradhan and Lekhpal were not taken, and that there was no question of law involved in this case. 6. Section 161 of U.P. Act I of 1951 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 rate is more than 10 per cent of the lower rental value. (1-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 the same rights in the land so received in exchange as they had in the land given in exchange." 7. The procedure for permitting exchange has been given in Rule 145 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules which reads as under :- "145. On receipt of an application for permission to make an exchange of land the Assistant Collector shall cause to be calculated the rental value of the land proposed to be given in exchange and of the land proposed to be received in exchange at hereditary rates and if he is satisfied that the exchange is not invalid according to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 161, call upon the parties the lessees, mortgages or holders of other encumbrances, if any, to show cause why the exchange should not be made. Every such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the application which shall be supplied by the applicant." 8. Every such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the application which shall be supplied by the applicant." 8. From the provisions contained in Rule 145 it is evident that on receipt of an application for permission to make an exchange of land the Assistant Collector shall cause to be calculated the rental value of the land proposed to be given in exchange and of the land proposed to be received in exchange at hereditary rates and if thereafter he is satisfied that the exchange is in accordance with the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 161 and is not invalid, he will call upon the parties, the lessees, mortgagees or holders of other encumbrances, if any, to show cause why the exchange should not be made. Such a notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the application which shall be supplied by the applicant. In the instant case, no such show-cause, notice was issued by the Assistant Collector to the parties. On account of this the exchange permitted by the Assistant Collector contravened the provisions contained in Rule 145 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules, and the order permitting the exchange suffered from illegalities. It is a fact that the land was not mutated in the name of the applicant and mutation proceedings were pending in the Tahsil. There is no document on record to prove that the applicant M/s. Techno Tower was the bhumidhar of plots with which the plots of Gaon Sabha were to be exchanged, in view of this the order passed by the trial court and that of the learned Additional Commissioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby set aside. The file is sent back to the trial court for proceeding in the matter after observing the procedure laid down under Rule 145 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules.