JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 7-5-1984 by which the appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner and the order of the trial court dated 29-6-1982 was upheld. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and D.G.C. (R.) and have also seen the relevant papers available on the file. 3. The facts of the case are that an application was filed for exchange of the land plot no. 422/2 area 3 acres from plot no. 376/,1 area 3.50 acres. It is alleged that plot no. 422/4 Min area 3 acres was given on patta to the applicant. The whole area of plot no. 422/4 is 5.46 acres. The applicant wanted to exchange this area of the plot with another plot and in respect of this a resolution from the Gaon Sabha is alleged to have been passed on 26-3-1981 mentioning that there was no loss of Gaon Sabha in this exchange. It is also mentioned that plot no. 422/4 is a "Ubar Khabar", i.e., uncultivable land whereas the plot no. 376/1 was cultivable land. The trial court has rejected this exchange by order dated 29-6-1982 on the ground that the exchange was in respect of a larger area and the lease of the land proposed to be exchanged had been cancelled by Additional Collector and that order has become final. The learned Additional Commissioner has rejected the appeal on the ground that the whole area was not to be exchanged and moreover larger portion was to be exchanged and he agreed with the finding given by the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that under Section 161 of U.P. Act I of 1951 the proviso (2) sub-section (1), the permission can only be refused if the hereditary rate is more than 10% less of the rental value. I am unable to accept his contention. 5. It is between the parties to get the land exchanged and it cannot be said that a party can compel the other party to exchange the land and the Assistant Collector is bound to give permission. The ground for refusing the permission as mentioned in Section 161 is not exhaustive. It can be refused on other ground also and both the courts have rejected the exchange and they can do so. 6. The ground for refusing the permission as mentioned in Section 161 is not exhaustive. It can be refused on other ground also and both the courts have rejected the exchange and they can do so. 6. The courts below have jurisdiction to refuse the permission of exchange if the party has got no right over the land which he wants to exchange and if the area is bigger than the area to be exchanged or it is against the interest of Gaon Sabha, etc. 7. I, therefore, see that there is no jurisdictional error or illegality apparent on the face of it. 8. I, therefore, dismiss the revision.