HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2357 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State. Sri Arun Kumar Pandey has accepted notice on behalf of Gaon Sabha. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Commissioner Aligarh, Division Aligarh not to decide the exchange proceeding which is outcome of the fraud and entire exercise has been done without following the procedure of law. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to make inquiry in the matter and further pleased to direct the respondent not to proceed with the exchange proceeding unless inquiry is conducted in order to verify that proceeding of exchange has been made properly in accordance with law or the same is outcome of fraudulent act in order to make proposal by the Gaon Sabha Susayat Kalan, Tehsil Sasani, District Hathras." 3. The prayer made in the present PIL is in the form of writ of prohibition restraining the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh not to exercise his authority provided to him under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. It is alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the exchange is being directed by resorting to fraudulent act. It is contended that this Court by seeking a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate about the possibility of exchange has forwarded the matter to the Commissioner for directing the exchange, without registering any case under Section 101 of the Code, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Pathak, Brajesh Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 2006. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. The exchange in question appears to be of a public utility land, which is not permissible under law, unless the user of the land is changed in accordance with the provisions of Section 77 of the Code read with Rule 84 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. The recommendation of the District Magistrate, which has been forwarded to the Commissioner, is in fact a part of the proceedings, under which, before permitting the exchange in accordance with law, the user of Gaon Sabha land recorded as chakmarg has to be changed by the State Government. The allegation of the petitioner that the revenue authorities without registration of any case under Section 101 are proposing to allow the exchange of bhumidhari land of respondent no.7 with a public utility land does not appear to be correct, requiring interference with the exercise undertaken by the revenue authorities, at this stage. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent nos.2 to 4 to ensure that if any exchange is under consideration at the behest of respondent no.7, it shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the need of the villagers of the chakroad, which is alleged to be the subject matter of exchange. October 1, 2026 Anil WPIL No. 2357 of 2026 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad