JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - A preliminary objections was raised that this appeal was incompetent as it was filed through a private counsel on behalf of the Gaon Sabha without written permission of the Collector. Reliance has been placed on Brindaban v. Gaon Sabha Omri Kala, 1980 A.W.C. page 243. 2. It was argued in reply that the appeal has been filed by vice chairman of the L.MC. of the village as the Chairman Kazipur is no more interested in the case but remains globe in hand with the opposite party Kanwal Singh & others being of his family and it was argued that in such cases the U.P. Pradhan can file the appeal through private counsel. Reliance has been placed on Gaon Sabha v. Gangadin, 1977 R.D. page 243. L.M.C. Nainu Patti District Mathura v. Board of Revenue U.P. Allahabad, 1965 R.D. Page 349, Mahadeo v. Sheopal Singh, 1976 R.D. page 299. 3. This appeal was filed by Kalla Singh Pradhan through a private counsel Sri G.N. Verma. It has not been filed by vice-chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (L.M.C.). The affidavit of the Up Pradhan that he looks after his litigation as the Chairman has become disinterested is not very much relevant. 4. In Brindaban & others v. Gaon Sabha Omri Kala, 1980 A.W.C. page 243 (H.C.) it has been held that "provisions of para 28 are mandatory suit cannot be filed by Chairman without any resolution having been passed L.M.C. and such a suit is not maintainable and S.D.O. cannot authorise filing of the suit of other proceeding on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. This ruling is not very much relevant. 5. In The Land Management Committee, Nainu Patti Mathura v. The Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1965 R.D. page 349 (H.C.). It has been held that para 131 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and B.P.S. Manual is directory having no force of statutory law-non compliance with para 131 is not fatal to filing of writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution or appointment of private counsel for Land Management Committee. It has been held that para 131 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and B.P.S. Manual is directory having no force of statutory law-non compliance with para 131 is not fatal to filing of writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution or appointment of private counsel for Land Management Committee. So far as the High Court is concerned and the writ filed through a private counsel by the L.M.C. was held maintainable as in Rule 114 of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules, there is no provision for appointment of any counsel on behalf of the Gaon Samaj in the High Court, therefore, the writ petition was allowed to be argued and was held maintainable although was filed through a private counsel. 6. In Mahadeo v. Sheopal Singh (Supra) it was held that "Gaon Sabah Pradhan was not only authority to conduct and prosecute suits on behalf of Gaon Sabha and that Up Pradhan or other office bearers or members of the L.M.C. were not debarred to conduct and prosecute suit on behalf of the Gaon Sabha". It appears that while holding so the Id. brother Member had section 122-A(3) of Act I of 1951 in mind which runs as follows:- 122-A(3)-"Subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the Chairman or any other office-bearer or member of the Land Management Committee shall, for and on behalf of the Land Management Committee, be entitled to sing any document and to do all other things for the conduct and prosecution of suits and other proceedings". 7. This sub-section authorises Chairman or any other officer-bearers of members of L.M.C. to conduct litigation for and on behalf of L.M.C. subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. 8. Para 129(1) of G.S. & B.P.S. Manual authorises the Chairman to sign the plain or written statement and application on its behalf and to make all the necessary arrangements. Its sub-para 2 runs as follows:- 129(2) "In the absence of the Chairman the work may be done by a member of committee authorized by the Chairman in writing. If no member has been authorized by him, the Committee may authorize one of its members by a resolution". 9. This sub-para authorises in the absence of Chairman the work to be done by a member of the committee authorised by Chairman in writing. If no member has been authorized by him, the Committee may authorize one of its members by a resolution". 9. This sub-para authorises in the absence of Chairman the work to be done by a member of the committee authorised by Chairman in writing. If no member has been authorised by him the committed may authorise one of its members by a resolution. It has not been left to the sweet will of any member to conduct litigation on behalf of L.M.C unless authorised in writing by the Chairman or if not done so by him by the Committee by a resolution. Therefore, as held in 1976 R.D. page 299 Up Pradhan or other Members are not debarred to conduct litigation on behalf of the L.M.C. but they are authorised to conduct it only if authorised by the pradhan in writing or by the L.M.C. by a resolution otherwise they are not authorised to conduct litigation on behalf of L.M.C. 10. In Gaon Sabha v. Ganga Din etc., 1977 R.D. page 243. It was held that:- "No doubt there is a resolution of the Gaon Sabha on the file of the Addl. Commissioner saying that Sri. V.C. Srivastava may be appointed as a 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 Gaon Samaj Manual. 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 lawyer was not a duly authorised lawyer to file the present revision". 11. Para 131 of G.S. & B.P.S. Manual runs as follows:- "131-Lawyers have been appointed who shall represent the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) and give it legal advice where necessary. The Committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the penal lawyers appointed. In importance cases, however, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific permission of the Collector in writing......" This para is mandatory to the effect that the committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the panel lawyer appointed. In important case further special lawyer can be engaged with specific permission of the Collector in writing. In importance cases, however, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific permission of the Collector in writing......" This para is mandatory to the effect that the committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the panel lawyer appointed. In important case further special lawyer can be engaged with specific permission of the Collector in writing. In the present case Sri G.N. Verma has been appointed as a special lawyer not by the L.M.C. but by the Pradhan without any specific permission of the Collector of District in writing. Sri. D.N. Srivastava, D.G.C. (R) has been appointed to represent the L.M.Cs. of the province and the state in the Board of Revenue, by C.O. No. D-4986/7VM-5131/78/Lucknow 14th September 1979 by his excellency the Governor. As this appeal has not been filed through D.G.C. (R.) appointed for conducting business of the L.M.C., in the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and has been filed through a special counsel without specific permission of the Collector in writing, it is incompetent and is liable to be rejected. The ruling reported in 1965 R.D. page 349 is not applicable to the present case because in it, it was held so for as the High Court was concerned as no appointment was made of any D.G.C. to represent the L.M.Cs. in the Hon'ble High Court, the paragraph 131 of G.S. & B.P.S. Manual was held to be directory which is not the case in the Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad. 12. In view of the above, this appeal is held to be incompetent for the reasons given above and is, therefore, hereby dismissed.