JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri S.K. Purwar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Anuruddh Chaturvedi for the respondents 4 to 9, Shri J.N. Maurya for the Agra Development Authority and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Notice on behalf of Gram Panchayat Mohammadpur, has been accepted by Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of an application under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for exchange and is directed against the order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No. 98 of 1997-98. This revision was filed by respondent no. 4. 3. The proceedings were initiated on a joint application dated 06.04.1993 filed by the petitioner and the Agra Development Authority for exchange of plot no. 276 area 5 bigha and odd with plot no. 215 area 6-10-11 bigha situated in Village Mohammadpur, Agra. The application aforesaid was allowed by order dated 23.12.1993. 4. Against this order, the contesting respondents 4 to 9 filed a restoration application on the ground that they too had a share in plot no. 276 and the exchange was without their knowledge and consent and therefore wholly ex-parte. The restoration application was allowed on 24.05.1996 holding the order of exchange to the ex-parte against the applicants. 5. Against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, allowing the restoration application, the petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society as also the Agra Development Authority, filed recall applications. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer on 19.07.1996 directed the parties to produce evidence so that the matter could be decided on merits. 7. Against this order as also an order dated 13.08.1996, the petitioner and the Agra Development Authority filed their revisions. By an order dated 25.03.1998, three revisions, were allowed, setting aside the orders dated 24.05.1996, 19.07.1996 and 13.08.1996, respectively. 8. Aggrieved by the revisional order aforesaid, passed by the Commissioner, respondents 5 to 9 preferred revisions before the Board of Revenue. However, these revisions were dismissed for default on 25.04.2007. Thereafter, restoration applications were filed for recall of the order dismissing the revisions for default. These restoration applications were dismissed on 16.09.2008. 9. The respondents thereafter filed review applications. The review applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the Division Bench was affirmed upon dismissal of the writ petition filed challenging it. 10. These restoration applications were dismissed on 16.09.2008. 9. The respondents thereafter filed review applications. The review applications were allowed by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. The order passed by the Division Bench was affirmed upon dismissal of the writ petition filed challenging it. 10. The Board of Revenue, thereafter by the order dated 28.01.2016 has allowed the revisions and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for a decision afresh after hearing the parties on merits. It is this order, which is impugned in this writ petition. 11. Shri Anuruddh Chaturvedi counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has submitted that the orders impugned in the instant writ petition had been challenged by the Agra Development Authority by means of writ petition nos. 38202 of 2016, 38206 of 2016 and 38211 of 2016. These writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2016. It is therefore submitted that the order impugned has already been affirmed by the writ court and, therefore, this writ petition filed by the Co-operative Society, is necessarily required to be dismissed. 12. Shri J.N. Maurya counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority has submitted that since the writ petition filed by the Agra Development Authority has already been dismissed by this Court, he has nothing further to add in the matter. 13. It would further be relevant to note that in pursuance of earlier orders passed in this writ petition, Shri J.N. Maurya, after obtaining instructions has furnished a compilation before this Court, which has been taken on record. This compilation contains documents pertaining to this case as also the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, whereby a large tract of land has been acquired by the State Government for construction of buildings, parks and road etc under a Planned Development Scheme of the Agra Development Authority. 14. Although, the writ petition can be dismissed on the short ground that the order impugned therein has been earlier affirmed by this Court while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Agra Development Authority, but, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears necessary to make certain observations in the matter. 15. 14. Although, the writ petition can be dismissed on the short ground that the order impugned therein has been earlier affirmed by this Court while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the Agra Development Authority, but, in view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears necessary to make certain observations in the matter. 15. As already noticed herein above, the writ petition arises out of proceedings for exchange under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which were initiated on a joint application filed by the petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society and the Agra Development Authority. 16. The compilation produced by Shri J.N. Maurya counsel for the Agra Development Authority contains a notification no. 53/XI-5-89-195-L.K-88 dated 30.01.1989. The Schedule in this notification plot no. 276 area 20-4-18-8 situated in Village Mohammadpur, is also mentioned. This shows that plot no. 276 was acquired by the State Government and the same was thereafter handed over to the Agra Development Authority for its planned development as mentioned in the notification aforesaid. It is therefore clear that the land has not been vested in the Agra Development Authority by means of notification under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Had this been the position there was no necessity of issuing any notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 17. Even the plot sought to be exchanged, namely plot no. 215 has been acquired by the same notifications. The area of plot no. 215, which was acquired by the notifications issued under the Land Acquisition Act mention its area as 6 bigha 10 biswa 11 biswansi of this plot. 18. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has sought exchange of about 5 bighas and odd of land of plot no. 276 recorded in its name and which it has allegedly purchased by means of a sale deeds with plot no. 215, which has been acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act for its planned development by the Agra Development Authority. 19. Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act authorises one bhumidhar to exchange his land with another bhumidhar or Gaon Sabha or a local authority which has been vested in such Gaon Sabha or local authority under Section 117 of the said Act. 19. Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act authorises one bhumidhar to exchange his land with another bhumidhar or Gaon Sabha or a local authority which has been vested in such Gaon Sabha or local authority under Section 117 of the said Act. This is apart from other conditions mentioned in Section 161 of the Act. 20. As already noticed herein above, the Agra Development Authority, is a local authority, but, plot no. 215 recorded in its name, which is sought to be exchanged with a some area of plot no. 276 recorded in the name of the petitioner, is not land vested in the Agra Development Authority under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 21. It must therefore be held that plot no. 215, sought to be exchanged by the Agra Development Authority, cannot be subject matter of exchange and the proceedings for its exchange, are wholly without jurisdiction and clearly malafide and acmed at granting undue benefit to the petitioner. 22. Under the circumstances therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, since the matter has been remanded back for fresh consideration of the application for exchange, in accordance with law and after hearing the parties, it is directed that a copy of this order be placed on the record of the proceedings, forthwith, and the authority dealing with the application for exchange must bear in mind the observations that have been made in the body of this judgment while passing final orders on the application for exchange. 23. Consequently, learned Standing Counsel as also counsel appearing for the Agra Development Authority and the private respondents are all directed to ensure that a certified copy of this order is placed on the record of the proceedings before the Court below, within a period of ten days from today. 24. This Court finds that one illegal and unauthorized act of the part of the Agra Development has led to a spate of unnecessary litigation and this Court has been burdened by five unnecessary writ petitions, in the process. 25. This Court was therefore inclined to make certain observations also against the erstwhile Secretary, Agra Development Authority holding charge at the time the proceedings were initiated. The Court has been informed that the Officer has since retired. Therefore, no directions for initiating departmental proceedings against him, are being issued.