JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—An order was passed on 31.5.2007 permitting exchange of plots between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It appears that after 10 months of the passing of the order, respondent Nos. 4 represented by Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava filed an application for restoration on the ground that the order was ex parte to him and that he had no knowledge of the said proceedings. 2. It appears that the said application was allowed by the impugned order on another ground, namely, that respondent No. 4 is of Scheduled Caste and therefore, such a transfer by way of exchange under Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A.and L.R.Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was impermissible in law. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate relied on Section 157-A of the Act and came to the said conclusion. He further found that since the exchange amounted to a transfer, therefore, stamp duty had not been properly paid thereon and accordingly recalled the order dated 31.5.2007. The petitioner preferred a revision which has been dismissed reiterating the same stand taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 4. This Court entertained the writ petition and granted an interim order on 16.9.2010. The respondents have filed a stay vacation application and a counter-affidavit. 5. I have heard Sri Akhilesh Misra holding brief of Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava for the contesting respondents as well as learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 5. 6. In view of the findings which have been recorded, in my opinion, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, completely misdirected himself on the issue relating to the applicability of Section 157-A and the exchange being a transfer of land. The issue as to whether exchange under Section 161 of the Act was a transfer or not has not been decided by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after recording any opinion thereon. The issue relating to non-payment of stamp duty does not arise. The focus should have been on the permissibility or otherwise of such an exchange. However, that could have been also not taken into account so long as there was no finding on the recall/restoration application about the allegations made by the petitioner inasmuch as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not have the power to review his own order. The focus should have been on the permissibility or otherwise of such an exchange. However, that could have been also not taken into account so long as there was no finding on the recall/restoration application about the allegations made by the petitioner inasmuch as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not have the power to review his own order. The respondents could have gone in revision against an erroneous order and the restoration could not have been allowed so long as the element of an ex parte order was not found by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In such a situation the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have considered the pleadings contained relating to the order having been passed ex parte before proceeding to undertake any exercise on merits. In view of this, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 6.3.2009 is unsustainable. The same is quashed. Consequently, the order passed in revision dated 28.7.2009 is also set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who shall consider the claim of the parties on the restoration before proceeding to touch the merits of the case. The restoration shall be decided preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. —————