JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the order dated 12-9-1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, reversing the order of S.D.O., Jaunpur dated 2-8-1976. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant Smt. Indira filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Bhagwanta and others which was decreed ex parte on 4-3-1974. Gaon Sabha remained absent but the State filed a written statement. The Gaon Sabha filed an application on 7-2-1976 for the restoration of the case alleging that no summon had been served upon if and it had no knowledge of the suit. The trial court rejected this application and an appeal was preferred against that order which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial court to decide the application for restoration afresh. This appeal has been filed against the same order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that Sri Chandra Bali Singh who is the pradhan of the village had appeared in this case earlier on 20-12-1973, i.e., before the ex parte decree was passed hence he had come to know about the facts of the case and he could contest it already but if he failed to do so the Gaon Sabha cannot be permitted to say that it had no knowledge of the suit. He also argued that the Gaon Sabha is only an agent of the State, hence the latter had filed the written statement it was not necessary for the Gaon Sabha to have contested the suit and it could act upon the written statement filed by the State and could do pairvi also of the case. 5. In my opinion none of these arguments is tenable because Gaon Sabha is an independent body and acts independently of the State. There is no doubt that on the date of vesting the property vested in the State free from ail Incumberances and it was reinvested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act but it would not mean that Gaon Sabha had become an agent of the State and does not have its own legal independent character. The reinvestment of the property in the Gaon Sabha itself indicates that the Gaon Sabha is an independent corporate body and is a person in its own capacity to contest the suits. Consequently it cannot be called an agent of the State and it cannot act upon the written statement filed by the State. A service of a separate notice on the Gaon Sabha is as much necessary as it is on the State. Consequently the Gaon Sabha has every right to contest all the suits filed against it independently of the State. As regards the signatures of Ckandrabali on the order sheet I do not think that the Gaon Sabha can be bound by such signatures of the Pradhan. Under para 128 of the Uttar Pradesh Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, Manual the conduct of Gaon Sabha litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, but shall be a matter of a resolution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti as a whole. Consequently in the instant case the signatures of Chandra Bali on the order sheet could be relevant if a resolution by the L.M.C. had earlier been passed and he could have been permitted to appear in the court to contest the case. The record does not indicate that any resolution had been passed before that date by the L.M.C. consequently the signatures of the Pradhan on the order sheet are of no value and no significance can be attached to them. A copy of resolution dated 2-2-1976 is on record which shows that through this resolution the L.M.C. authorised Chandra Bali Singh Pradhan to contest the case and to get the ex parte decree set aside. Under such circumstances the restoration application moved after this resolution can be said to be a competent step taken by the Pradhan. This application could, therefore, be deemed to have been moved by the L.M.C. and could be taken under consideration by the court. The trial court has rejected the application and the learned Additional Commissioner has come to a finding that the order passed by the trial court was not proper because proper opportunity for producing evidence was not given to the parties. 6. The trial court has rejected the application and the learned Additional Commissioner has come to a finding that the order passed by the trial court was not proper because proper opportunity for producing evidence was not given to the parties. 6. I find no reason to differ will the opinion expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner and I think that the remand of the case to the trial court is not unjustified. This appeal is, therefore, without force and is rejected. Let the record be sent back to the trial court to decide the application of restoration moved by the Gaon Sabha in the light of the observations made by the learned Additional Commissioner in his judgment.