JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This reference has been made by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his recommendation dated 30.6.86. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that an application under Section 161 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was filed by Vishambhar Singh son of Mool Chandra, resident of village Sirauli, Tahsil and District Agra. He wanted to exchange his plot No. 179 area 0-13-0 from the Gaon Sabha plot No. 245 area 0-13-0. The applicant is recorded bhumidhar of this plot and the Gaon Sabha land is recorded as Abadi in 1374 fasli khatauni. The trial court allowed the exchange on the report of Naib Tahsildar Sri S.K. Sharma dated 14.7.67. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order "approved as proposed issue amaldaramad". An appeal was filed by the Gaon Sabha which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 25.1.83. After that Kali Charan moved restoration applicant before the trial court on 3.8.83. Order dated 8.8.67 was set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 25.10.83. Against that order revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has recommended this revision that it should be accepted and the trial court's order should be set aside. The Additional Commissioner also fixed the date for hearing before the Board on 30.12.86. The learned Addl. Commissioner has also recommended that the application of Kali Charan for restoration should be rejected. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The trial court while allowing the exchange has not issued any notice to anyone. It has only approved the report of the Naib Tahsildar. In the application for exchange although the necessary parties were added but when the report of the Naib Tahsildar was obtained it was necessary to have issued notices to the parties then only the exchange should have been allowed. The learned trial court has not applied 'his mind while approving the exchange. It has just only written that the exchange is allowed as proposed. This is not a judicial order. This is also important that the land which has been given in exchange is an abadi land. The question is also important whether this abadi land can be exchanged? Therefore, in these circumstances of the case the ex-parte order which was set aside by the trial court need not to be interfered in the revisional power. This is also important that the land which has been given in exchange is an abadi land. The question is also important whether this abadi land can be exchanged? Therefore, in these circumstances of the case the ex-parte order which was set aside by the trial court need not to be interfered in the revisional power. The matter remains still before the trial court to consider the exchange application after taking the evidence of the parties concerned and consulting the Land Management Committee before the final order is passed. The parties to appear before the trial court on 6.1.93.