JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - This revision is against the order dated June 17, 1971 passed by Sri D.C. Misra, Tahsildar Soraon, distt. Allahabad in a case under Rule 115-D of Z.A. Rules. 2. A report was made by the Lekhpal that Gangadin had trespassed over plot No. 860 (2 Big. 18 Biswas) and, therefore, he should be ejected. O.P. Gangadin filed an objection saying that his ancestral house was standing on the land in suit comprising of the house, the Sehan Darwaza and, therefore, he was not liable to ejectment. He alleged that the entries were incorrect. 3. The learned Tahsildar asked the Naib Tahsildar to report and to prepare a site plain and when that was done he passed an order that the S.K. should go to the spot, demarcate the land used for building and Sehan Darwaza and deliver the remaining land to the Pradhan. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed by the Gaon Sabha. 4. The learned Addl. Commissioner has referred the revision to the Board with the recommendation that it should be accepted and the order of the trial court be set aside. He is of the view that the trial court had no business to delegate the authority of demarcating the land in dispute between the O.P. and the Gaon Sabha to the S.K. An objection has been filed by the O.P. against that. 5. The revision was heard today. Unfortunately the learned lawyer of the Gaon Sabha is absent inspite of notice. It has been urged on behalf of O.P. that Sri Vishnu Chandra Srivastava, lawyer who presented the revision was not a penal lawyer and, therefore, he could not file the revision. I find that there is a resolution of the Gaon Sabha on the file of the learned Addl. Commissioner saying that Sri V.C. Srivastava may be appointed as lawyer for the purpose of this case, but there is no permission of the Collector for engaging the special lawyer as enjoined by Para 131 of him as a Gaon Samaj Manual. I also note that under Section 127-B of Z.A. Act, it is only the penal lawyer who can prosecute the case of Gaon Sabha. It is, therefore, clear that the learned lawyer was not a duly authorised lawyer to file the present revision. 6. I also note that under Section 127-B of Z.A. Act, it is only the penal lawyer who can prosecute the case of Gaon Sabha. It is, therefore, clear that the learned lawyer was not a duly authorised lawyer to file the present revision. 6. I do not agree with the recommendation given by the learned Additional Commissioner. The land in dispute contains the house of the O.P. and his Sehan Darwaza and both are ancestral in nature. It was, therefore, the duty of the learned Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector I Class to have demarcated that much area and scored it out from the property of the Gaon Samaj. That was the only right way and that has been done. His order is perfectly right and should no be disturbed. 7. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. The result is that the learned Tahsildar will proceed to enforce his order dated June 17, 1971.