JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This revision has been brought against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division. Meerut dated September 7, 1982 confirming the order dated March 31, 1982 passed by S.D.O. Jansath, district Muzaffaranagar in case under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that opposite party Dharmendra Mohan applied to the S.D.O. for the exchange of his plot No. 640 area 1 Biswa and 641 area 1.11.5 with plot No. 343 area 1.15.5 which is Gaon Sabha property. This exchange was allowed by the S.D.O. by his order dated March 31, 1982. The revisionist Vijai Sing filed a revision against that order before the Addl. Commissioner but it was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. A preliminary objection was raised by the opposite party that Vijay Singh was not a party to the proceeding, hence he could not file this revision. From the record it is proved that the allegation of the revisionist is that the land of the Gaon Sabha which has been sought to be exchanged is a pond and is a land of public utility, hence any villager interested in such land can file the revision. For this reason I do not find any force in the contention of the opposite party and, therefore, I find that this revision is maintainable. As regards the merits of the case it was argued on behalf of the revisionist that the land of the Gaon Sabha is recorded as pond, hence it could not be given in exchange because under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act only such land as is cultivable can be given in exchange and a pond being a land of public utility cannot be exchanged. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that since the pond is being used for agricultural purposes, hence it can also be given in exchange. 6. I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the revisionist that a pond does not fall within the category of sub-section 1(i) of Section 117 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, hence it cannot be a subject matter of exchange, and the S.D.O. could not approve such exchange. His order was, therefore, illegal and could not be maintained. His order was, therefore, illegal and could not be maintained. The learned Addl. commissioner failed to appreciate this legal position and he also acted illegally in dismissing the revision. The orders of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed. The orders passed by both the court below are quashed and the exchange sought for is refused.