JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Sri Daya Ram, Additional Commissioner, Agra Division Agra dated 28.11.83 passed in appeal No. 31 of 1982-83 arising out of a case No. 2 of 1982-83 under Section 161 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Revision filed an exchange application with the Gaon under Section 161 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. They proposed to exchange plots No. 335 and 338 from the plot No. 417 of Gaon Sabha. The exchange was allowed. After it restoration application was filed by the Pradhan of the village on 2.8.1982. Notice were issued after hearing the parties. The Sub-Divisional Officer set aside his order dated 14.10.81 and restored the proceeding and fixed date for hearing. 3. Against the order appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the appeal. Against these two orders this revision has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that delay in filing the restoration application has not been explained and it has also not been condoned by the trial court in view of the law laid down in 1985 A.W.C. Page 347. The order is bad it should be set aside and the case should be remanded that the restoration application should be adjudicate afresh whether the trial court want to condone the delay or not. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that no notice was issued before the exchange was allowed to the Gaon Sabha; that Gaon Sabha had not been heard and no consent of the Gaon Sabha had been obtained in allowing the exchange. On this ground the restoration application was allowed. 7. In view of the finding of the trial court the law referred by the learned appellate court will not apply in this revision. There is no justification to interfere in the order of both the courts below. Moreover the land of the Gaon Sahba which was exchanged is reserved for public purpose during the consolidation. In these circumstances it is essential that the trial court should again consider whether it is possible to exchange the land of public utility with agricultural land. There is no justification to interfere in the order of both the courts below. Moreover the land of the Gaon Sahba which was exchanged is reserved for public purpose during the consolidation. In these circumstances it is essential that the trial court should again consider whether it is possible to exchange the land of public utility with agricultural land. Moreover the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.10.1981 is only like this "approved as proposed". This was no order in the eye of law, therefore, the restoration application which was allowed was perfectly correct. There is no force in this revision, hence accordingly dismissed.