ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings u/s 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was one of public utility and since it came in possession of the opposite parties 2 and 3 after the 8th of August 1946, the opposite parties were liable to be ejected and further liable to pay Rs. 200/- as damages. Accordingly, an order for the ejectment of opposite parties 2 and 3 and for recovery of Rs. 200/- as damages was passed. This order of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner. Opposite parties 2 and 3 preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue and a single member of the Board allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the two subordinate courts and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The order of the Board was passed on 6th of May 1959 by a single member of the Board who did not obtain the concurrence of another member which in law he was bound to obtain. This petition is directed against the order of the Board mentioned above. 3. When this petition was taken up, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 to the effect that this writ petition was not properly presented and that Sri. G.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, could not be heard. According to the learned Counsel the Pardhan who had signed Vakalatnama appointing Sri. G.N. Verma has not been proved to be the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. As such he was not com petent to authorise Sri. G.N. Verma to file the writ petition against the order of the Board. The second submission of the learned Counsel was that in view of paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual it is a panel lawyer appointed by the State who could file the writ petition and could be heard in support of it and not any other counsel. 4. I have considered both these submissions. But, in my opinion they lack force and should be overruled. 4. I have considered both these submissions. But, in my opinion they lack force and should be overruled. So far as the first objection of the learned Counsel is concerned, this point was not raised in the counter affidavit and the Pardhan who has executed the Vakalatnama in favour of Sri G.N. Verma is the same person who has been litigating from the very beginning as the Pardhan and Chairman of the Land Management Committee. If the learned Counsel wanted to contest this matter, he should have taken objection in the counter affidavit or similar objection should have been taken at some prior stage during the course of the litigation which could have been determined by the revenue courts or the Petitioner would have filed necessary proof in this Court to show that the Pradhan was the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. This objection is, therefore, overruled. 5. Now coming to the second objection of the learned Counsel, it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner by Sri G.N. Verma that para-graph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is only a direction issued by the State Government. It has no force of Statutory law. Moreover, this paragraph is only directory and non-compliance of it would not make the petition incompetent. Moreover it was submitted that so far as the High Gourt is concerned no lawyer has been appointed to conduct Gaon Samaj litigation. Sri. S.B L. Gaur, learned Counsel for the Respondents on being asked expressed his inability to inform the Court as to whether any counsel has been appointed for conducting the litigation for and on behalf of the Goan Samaj in this Court. 6. Section 127B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act deals with the panel of lawyers which is as follows: 127B. Panel lawyers. (1) The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, appoint in each district a panel of lawyers to conduct suits and other proceedings by or against the Gaon Sabhas in respect of their functions under this Act. Panel lawyers. (1) The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, appoint in each district a panel of lawyers to conduct suits and other proceedings by or against the Gaon Sabhas in respect of their functions under this Act. (2) A panel lawyer shall with respect to such Gaon Sabhas in district, as may be prescribed, be their agent for the purpose of receiving processes issued by any court or any authority against them in respect of their functions under this Act, and shall be deemed to be the recognised agent by whom appearances, acts and applications under this act of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or any other law relating to land tenure may be made or done on behalf of such Gaon Sabhas. By virtue of Section 128(2)(k) rules have been framed for the conduct and prosecution of the suits and proceeding by or against the Land Management Committee. In pursuance of this provision the State Government has made Rule 114 in this respect which is as follows: 114 In For the conduct of suits, applications and other proceedings, by or against the Gaon Samajes, the following shall be appointed to the panel of lawyers in each district for the courts specified against each: (a) The District Government Counsel (Civil) appointed by the State Government for civil courts at district headquarters (b) The District Government Counsel (Revenue) appointed or to be appointed by the State Government for revenue courts at district headquarters. The District Government Counsel (Civil) and the District Government Counsel (Revenue), appointed in the manner given above, shall be the recognised agent of all Gaon Samajes in the District for civil and revenue work as the case may be. (c) A Mukhtar, a revenue agent or a lawyer to be selected for appointment by the Collector who is hereby empowered to make appointment on behalf of the State Government for revenue courts at Tahsil headquarters. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in revenue courts at Tahsil headquarters. (d) The Sub District Government Counsel (Civil) appointed by the State Government for civil courts at tahsil headquarters, wherever they exist. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in civil courts at tahsil headquarters. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in revenue courts at Tahsil headquarters. (d) The Sub District Government Counsel (Civil) appointed by the State Government for civil courts at tahsil headquarters, wherever they exist. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in civil courts at tahsil headquarters. (2) The term of the tahsil panel lawyers shall not exceed three years but the appointing authority may remove anv such lawyer before the expiry of his term. (3) District Officer shall maintain a confidential personal file of every panel lawyer and shall annually enter therein remarks on the lawyer's capacity, efficiency and integrity. (4) The terms and duties of the panel lawyers and the control of the Collector over them shall be governed by the instructions for the conduct of Gaon Samaj litigation issued in GO No. 2240 AZ/I A-l165 1954, dated August 20, 1958, or such instructions as may be issued by the State Government from time to time. It is apparent from this rule that no counsel has been appointed to conduct cases on behalf of the Gaon Samaj in this Court. In absence of any mention of this Court one could think that standing Counsel may be considered to be such counsel for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Gaon Samaj. But, in my opinion, this assumption cannot be made for the simple reason that the Standing Counsel represents the Board of Revenue and subordinate courts. As such it is not possible to consider that the Standing Counsel might be deemed to be a counsel for the Land Management Committee. In absence of any such appointment when the Chairman, Land Management Committed is a person authorised under the law to conduct a litigation for or against the Gaon Samaj and when he appoints a counsel for that purpose, it cannot be said that the counsel has no authority to file the petition or to argue the case on his behalf. Moreover in my opinion, paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is only a direction given by the State Government to the Land Management Committee and has not the force of statutory law. Non-compliance of it cannot be considered to be fatal to the presentation of the writ petition or the appointment of Sri. G.N. Verma as counsel for the Land Management Committee. Non-compliance of it cannot be considered to be fatal to the presentation of the writ petition or the appointment of Sri. G.N. Verma as counsel for the Land Management Committee. NO objection had been taken in the counter affidavit in this respect as well. Consequently no evidence could be brought on the record to show that the Chairman, Land Management Committee had taken special permission for the engagement of Sri. G.N. Verma as provided by paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual itself. 7. Since the Chairman, Land Management Committee is authorised to conduct litigation for or against the Land Management Committee and he appoints a lawyer to conduct a case why should this Court in absence of any statutory prohibition go into this question and refuse to hear the counsel appointed by the Chairman, Land Management Committee. If the Chairman, Land Management Committee has acted in contravention of certain directions of the State, it is for the State or the person aggrieved to take action against the Chairman, Land Management Committee for disobeying the directions issued by the State Government. This Court will not go into this question when there is no legal prohibition in the Act or the Rules made in this respect for engaging a private counsel for the conduct of a litigation on behalf of the Gaon Samaj so for as this Court is concerned. In view of what has been said above, the preliminary objection raised is overruled. 8. So far as the writ petition on merits is concerned, it has to be allowed and the order of opposite party No. 1 quashed on the short ground that the learned single member of the Board of Revenue has reversed the judgment of the first appellate court without obtaining the 9. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The order ot the Board of Revenue dated 6th May 1959 is hereby quashed. But in the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs After I had delivered judgment Sri. S.B.L. Gaur learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that I should add to my judgment that on the quashing of the order the appeal before the Board becomes pending and the Board will decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. S.B.L. Gaur learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that I should add to my judgment that on the quashing of the order the appeal before the Board becomes pending and the Board will decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The automatic result of the quashing is that the appeal before the Board becomes pending and the Board naturally will decide it in accordance with law.