JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur filed a suit No. 195 of 1963 against Gram Samaj of village Akrabad and others for an injunction to restrain the defendants from realising a sum of Rs. 1,275/- or any other sum in pursuance of the order dated 25th May 1963 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. This suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said decision. That appeal was also dismissed. The plaintiffs have now come to this court in second appeal No. 2047 of 1965. Against Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur Gram Sabha, Akrabad also filed a suit No. 398 of 1965 for the recovery of Rs. 2,500/- on account of damages and for injunction to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiff's right to give the weighment theka. This suit was decreed as prayed, whereupon the defendants filed an appeal which was allowed and the suit was dismissed. Against the said decision Gram Sabha, Akrabad has now come to this Court in Second Appeal No. 181 of 1968. In both these appeals common questions of law and fact are involved. Hence the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties it would be necessary to narrate the relevant facts. Gram Akrabad gave a Theka for the years 1962-63 to Mangal Sen, who was impleaded as defendant No. 4 in suit No. 195 of 1963, for a sum of Rs. 1,225/- to weigh the produce of the farmers who brought their produce to the bazar which has vested in the Gram Sabha. Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur are the residents of that village and carry on business of a that in the said bazar. In connection with their business they weighed the goods of their dealers who brought grain and other articles from outside for sale in the bazar. Mangal Sen in pursuance of that Theka asked Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur to desist from weighing the goods in the bazar. But the later failed to do so whereupon a complaint was lodged with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who took action against them under Section 122 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and passed an order on 25th May, 1963 directing Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur to pay a sum of Rs. But the later failed to do so whereupon a complaint was lodged with the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who took action against them under Section 122 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and passed an order on 25th May, 1963 directing Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur to pay a sum of Rs. 1,225/- towards damages and Rs. 50/- towards cost of the case, Gaon Sabha wanted to realise the said amount from Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur whereupon they filed the suit No. 195 of 1963 alleging, inter alia, that they had a right to carry on the business of weighing the goods of the dealers who brought them for sale in the bazar and neither the Gaon Sabha nor the S. D. M. had any right to restrain them from doing so. That suit was dismissed and the appeal therefrom was also dismissed whereafter Gaon Sabha wanted to give weighment theka for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 but Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur threatened not to recognise the rights of the Gaon Sabha and continued to weigh the goods as a result of which no person came forward to take the theka. The Gaon Sabha contended that it was thereby put to a loss of Rs. 3,000/- but it filed a suit against Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur for the recovery of Rs, 25,000/- only. It also felt that other shop-keepers of Akrabad were colluding with Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur and, therefore, the suit was filed by the Gaon Sabha under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. claiming injunction. That suit, as pointed out above, was decreed but the appeal therefrom was allowed and the suit was dismissed. 3. The first contention which was pressed before me on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was that the weighment dues are `Sayar' as held in the case of Suraj Pal v. Jawahar Singh, AIR 1933 Alld. 310. It was submitted that the right to collect `Sayar' vested in the State under Section 6 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and subsequently it vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the said Act. It was also submitted that under sub-clause (e) of Sub-sec. 310. It was submitted that the right to collect `Sayar' vested in the State under Section 6 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and subsequently it vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the said Act. It was also submitted that under sub-clause (e) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 37 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act the Gaon Sabha is empowered to levy fees on persons exposing goods for sale in market, hat or melas belonging to or under the control of the Gaon Sabha. It is not disputed that the bazar of Akrabad belongs to and is under the control of the Gaon Sabha. In view of these provisions it was urged that the Gaon Sabha has had a right to recover weighment dues which are `Sayar' in nature and at any rate the Gaon Sabha has a right to levy fees on the persons exposing goods for sale in the market. It was also urged that the Gaon Sabha has a right to control trading on its own land and in its market and for the purpose it may or may not permit a person to carry on a particular business on its land or market.** 4. It appears from the averments made in the written statement in suit No. 195 of 1963 that the Gaon Sabha had given theka of weighing goods for the year 1962 to Mangal Sen Defendant No. 4. There is a distinction between `Sayar' and the theka for weighing' goods. `Sayar' has not been defined in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Its definition is, therefore, to be gathered from the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act and the Agra Tenancy Act. It was held in Suraj Pal v. Jawahar, AIR 1933 Alld, 310. that the weighment dues, i.e., money paid by the person who is licensed by the land holder or the lambardar to exercise his profession of weighing the goods of the tenants within the zamindari of the licensor comes within the definition of `Sayar'. Gaon Sabha obviously had not asked Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur or for that purpose any other shopkeepers engaged in the business of weighing goods to pay weighment dues to the Gaon Sabha. Gaon Sabha obviously had not asked Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur or for that purpose any other shopkeepers engaged in the business of weighing goods to pay weighment dues to the Gaon Sabha. On account of the fact that those persons were permitted by the Gaon Sabha to exercise their profession of weighing the goods within the market area belonging to and controlled by the Gaon labha. What the Gaon Sabha had done in the instant case was that it granted a theka to Mangal Sen for the year 1962-63 to carry on the profession of weighing the goods of those persons who brought their produce from outside to the market for sale. Mangal Sen, in his turn on the strength of the theka asked Jai Shanker and Raj Bahadur not to weigh the goods of any person who brought the same for sale in the market. The Gaon Sabha thus permitted only one person to the exclusion of others to carry on their profession of weighing the goods. This obviously is not an action to realise `Sayar' dues from the shop-keepers who carry on the business of weighing goods in the bazar. By this action the Gaon Sabha intended to create monopoly of the profession of weighing the goods in favour of one person and interfered with the right of other persons to carry on the profession of weighing the goods in the market. This right cannot be said to have vested in the Gaon Sabha either under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha contended that no citizen could claim a fundamental right to carry on a trade or profession on the land belonging to another person and in support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision in the case of Mohd. Yasin v. Dist. Magistrate, AIR 1954 Alld. 317 wherein it was held that a petition writer has no legal right, let alone a fundamental right, to carry on his profession in the Collectorate compound save with the permission of the Collector and if that permission is withdrawn it would still be open to him to carry on his occupation any where other than the Collectorate compound. 317 wherein it was held that a petition writer has no legal right, let alone a fundamental right, to carry on his profession in the Collectorate compound save with the permission of the Collector and if that permission is withdrawn it would still be open to him to carry on his occupation any where other than the Collectorate compound. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Pyare Lal v. Delhi Municipality, AIR 1968 S.C. 163 in which it was held that is no fundamental right to carry on street trading. Both these cases, however, do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Mohd. Yasin the license to carry on the profession of petition writer in the Collectorate compound was cancelled for a period of five years on the ground that he had worked in an objectionable manner. Mohd. Yasin could not establish that he had a legal right to the unrestrained use of the Collectorate compound for working as a petitioner writer. In the present case it was not disputed that Jai Shanker, Raj Bahadur and other shopkeepers had been carrying on the profession of weighing goods in the market since long. The Gaon Sabha did not grant the theka for collecting weighment dues on its behalf. What it did was that it granted a theka to one individual to the exclusion of all others for carrying on the profession of weighing the goods and thereby depriving all other shopkeepers from carrying on that profession. It is not permissible to the Gaon Sabha to discriminate between citizens and grant a monopoly to one trader to the exclusion of other traders. There is no provision in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act which empowers the Gaon Sabha to grant such a monopoly of weighing goods to one person to the exclusion of other traders. It cannot prohibit totally any one from carrying on that profession. The mode and manner of realising weighing dues from the persons who carry on the profession of weighing goods in the market have to be laid down and determined in the light of the relevant statutory provisions. The impugned action of the Gaon Sabha, however, cannot find support from the provisions of sub-clause (e) of Sub-sec. The mode and manner of realising weighing dues from the persons who carry on the profession of weighing goods in the market have to be laid down and determined in the light of the relevant statutory provisions. The impugned action of the Gaon Sabha, however, cannot find support from the provisions of sub-clause (e) of Sub-sec. (1) of Section 37 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act inasmuch as the Gaon Sabha has not levied any fees on persons exposing goods for sale in market, hat or melas belonging to or under the control of the Gaon Sabha. Its ascertion in the two suits referred to above has been that it has a right to grant a theka of weighing the goods to any individual it liked and can prohibit all other shopkeepers from carrying on their profession in the market. This is, however, not within the scope of its authority and is certainly not contemplated by sub-clause (e) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 37. No other provision was brought to my notice conferring such power on the Gaon Sabha. In these circumstances, second appeal No. 2047 of 1965 deserves to be allowed and second appeal No. 181 of 1968 filed by the Gaon Sabha deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the result, second appeal No. 2047 of 1965 is allowed, the decrees passed by the appellate court below is set aside and the suit No. 195 of 1963 is decreed. Second Appeal No. 181 of 1968 is dismissed with the result that suit No. 398 of 1965 stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties to both the appeals shall bear their own costs here and in the courts below.