ORDER W. Broome, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the SDO, Etawah, dated 21-2-1966, purporting to have been passed u/s 95(1)(g) of the Panchayat Raj Act, removing the Petitioner from the post of Chairman of the Land Management Committee of Bedpur village. The subsequent order of the Collector of Etawah dated 18-8-1966, rejecting the Petitioner's appeal against the SDO's decision, is also challenged, 2. Several arguments have been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, but for the decision of this petition it will be sufficient for me to consider only one, namely the argument that Section 95(1)(g) does not empower the authorities to remove the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. The Petitioner is the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha and by virtue of being Pradhan he is also the Chairman of the Land Management Committee vide the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 28A of the Panchayat Raj Act). Section 96(1)(g) runs as follows: 95 (1). The State Government may-- (g) suspend or remove a member of a Gaon Panchayat or Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, an officebearer of a Gaon Sabha or a Parich, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat.... Acting under this provision the relevant authority could remove the Pradhan from his Pradhanship, because the Pradhan is an Office-bearer of the Gaon Sabha. It could also remove a member of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee). But no clause of the above quoted provision entitles the authorities to remove the Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. There appears to be no provision in the Act for the appointment of a separate Chairman of the Land Management Committee, apart from the Pradhan. The Chairmanship of the Committee is merely one of the functions performed by the Pradhan, who, as already pointed out, is an Ex-officio Chairman of the Committee under the proviso to Section 28-A(2). 3. I am satisfied therefore that the impugned orders are illegal, since the provisions of Section 95(1)(g) do not allow for the removal of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, as distinct from the Pradhan. If action has to be taken against the Petitioner, he should be removed from the Pradhanship as a whole. 4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, the impugned orders of 21-2-1966 and 18-8-1966 being quashed. If action has to be taken against the Petitioner, he should be removed from the Pradhanship as a whole. 4. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, the impugned orders of 21-2-1966 and 18-8-1966 being quashed. This will not of course preclude the authorities from taking fresh action u/s 95(1)(g) against the Petitioner as Pradhan, if they so choose.