JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This reference has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, vide his order dated 22-9-82 for setting aside the trial court's order dated 21-7-82. 2. It appears that Udayaveer Singh moved an application on 7-10-86 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bulandshahr, alleging that his plot no. 877, area 3-0-11, situate in village Bahpur, Pargana Siana, Tahsil and District Bulandshahr was acquired for purposes of Harijan abadi, that in the same village plot nos. 981, area 3-4-0, 946, area 12 Biswa and 855, area 1-11-0 were declared as surplus under the provisions of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, that he did not want to take compensation in lieu of acquisition of his plot no. 877, but wanted land in lieu thereof which had been declared as surplus during proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. After taking report from Tahsil and after a resolution being passed by the Land Management Committee on 2-10-76, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer permitted the exchange on 23-11-76 in favour of applicant, Udayaveer Singh in respect of plots nos. 855, 946, 981,864, 941, 943, 948, 966, 971, 972 and 1025. Thereafter on 19-4-78, an application was moved by the State of U.P. that the land declared excess under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is vested in the State and it is the State of U.P. which could order vesting of land in Gaon Sabha hence, the Gaon Sabha had no right to give its consent to the exchange. It was prayed that the order dated 23-11-76 should be set aside. That application was rejected by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer stating that the State of U.P. was not a party to the proceedings. Against that order, no revision was preferred by the State of U.P. After three years of that order, Lakhpat and others moved an application on 12-10-81 alleging that they were landless agricultural labourers, that the land declared as excess was allotted to Krishnaveer and others wrongly, that the Land Management Committee had no right to give that land to Krishnaveer and others, that the land of opposite parties had been acquired and they could not make an exchange of that acquired land, and that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to permit this exchange. Consequently, they prayed that the order dated 23-11-76 should be set aside. Consequently, they prayed that the order dated 23-11-76 should be set aside. An objection was filed by the opposite parties (revisionists) alleging that the applicants had no locus standi for moving the application, that the order dated 23-11-76 could not be cancelled, that the application of State of U.P. was already rejected on 11-9-78 and this application was not at all maintainable. The learned trial court rejected the objection of the opposite parties, i.e., the revisionists, and set aside the orders of its predecessor dated 23-11-76 and 11-9-78. Against that order, a revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who has made the recommendation aforesaid. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner says that the land declared excess under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act is vested in the State of U.P. and it is the State of U.P., which orders its vesting with the Gaon Sabha, and that land vested in State of U.P. could not be exchanged under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that this application was not permitted as an exchange under Section 161 but only the land was given to the opposite parties in lieu of compensation. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that the order of 23-11-76 was not in accordance with the provisions of law but this order was an unjust order, and that the applicant-opposite parties were not aggrieved parties, and as such their application could have not been considered and, more so, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no right to set aside the orders passed by his predecessor before three years or five years. 5. It is a fact that Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to allot land which had been declared excess in ceiling proceedings, but when the State of U.P. filed an objection for setting aside that order, and the order was not set aside, the State of U.P. should have approached the proper court of law. 5. It is a fact that Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to allot land which had been declared excess in ceiling proceedings, but when the State of U.P. filed an objection for setting aside that order, and the order was not set aside, the State of U.P. should have approached the proper court of law. So far as the views of the learned Additional Commissioner in this respect are concerned, they are justified, but I find that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to allot this land in lieu of compensation and this act of his was against the provisions of law, and any act done without jurisdiction is no act in the eye of law. In view of this, the order dated 23-11-76 granting exchange and dated 22-7-82 setting aside the order for exchange passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers are non-est and they are accordingly set aside. 6. Section 27 of the U.P. Act I of 1961, known as the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 provides for settlement of surplus land. That section records as under "27: Settlement of surplus land.-(1) The State Government shall settle out of the surplus land in a village in which no land is available for community purposes or in which the land as available is less than 15 acres which the Gaon Sabha of that village so however that the total land in the village available for community purposes after such settlement does not exceed 15 acres. The land so settled with the Gaon Sabha shall be used for planting trees, growing fodder or for such other community purposes, as may be prescribed. (2) The State Government may either settle any surplus land in accordance with sub-section (1.) or sub-section (3) of use or permit its use in accordance with Section 25 or manage or otherwise deal with it in such manner as it thinks fit. (3) Any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the order of preference and subject to the limits specified respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (3) Any remaining surplus land shall be settled by the Collector in accordance with the order of preference and subject to the limits specified respectively in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (4) The Commissioner may of his own motion and shall, on the application of any aggrieved person, enquire into such settlement and if he is satisfied that the settlement is irregular, he may after notice to the person in whose favour such settlement is made to show cause- (i) cancel the settlement and the lease, if any and thereupon, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or in any instrument, the rights, title and interest of person in whose favour such settlement was made or lease executed or any person claiming through him in such land shall cease, and such land shall revert to the State Government; and (ii) direct that every person holding or retaining possession thereof may be evicted, and may for the purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary. (5) Every order passed by the Commissioner under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) The Commissioner acting of his own motion under sub-section (4) may issue notice, and an application under that sub-section may be made- (a) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted before November 10, 1980, before the expiry of a period of two years from the said date ; and (b) in the case of any settlement made or lease granted on or after the said date, before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of such settlement or lease." 7. In the instant case, there is nothing forthcoming from the record that the State Government has settled the land as provided by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 27 of U.P. Act I of 1961. There is no evidence on record to establish that any balance from land declared surplus still remained after it was settled by the State Government as provided by sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 27 of Act I of 1961. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to deal with such land and to settle it or permit its exchange in favour of opposite parties (revisionists). There is no provision for exchange of land in lieu of compensation. 8. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer had no authority to deal with such land and to settle it or permit its exchange in favour of opposite parties (revisionists). There is no provision for exchange of land in lieu of compensation. 8. The only question that now remains to be decided is whether any action could be taken in respect of such land. Under sub-section (4) of Section 27 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, it is the Commissioner who, either of his own motion and shall, on the application of any aggrieved person, enquire into such settlement. But, sub-section (6) puts a limit in respect of issuing a show cause notice. It would be proper to send this file to the Commissioner of the Division to proceed with in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 27 of the U.P. Act I of 1961. 9. With these observations, the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is not accepted and the matter is sent to the learned Commissioner for proceeding in accordance with law.