JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision Application filed by Ambika Prasad against the order dated July 17, 1978 passed by Tahsildar/A.C. 1st Class, Karvi, district Banda in a case under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951, imposing damages of Rs. 2400/- and ordering ejectment of the applicant. 2. The learned Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, by his order dated November 6, 1978 has recommended to allow the revision application and to set aside the order of the lower court. 3. Action against Deo Dutta was started on the report of the Lekhpal that he has made some construction and had committed misappropriation by installing pumping set of well in plot No. 229/1 15 biswas of village Sursenpur Majra Mirjapur, district Banda. 4. Deo Dutta had filed objection that his son Ambika Prasad had got the boring in the well, got constructed for Harijans of that locality with permission of the Gaon Sabha and he was Sirdar of 10 biswas of that plot. 5. Notice in Form 49-A was issued to the applicant Ambika Prasad also. His father applied for adjournments for him and in the last Ambika Prasad filed objection on the similar grounds alleged by his father but failed to adduce evidence and the impugned order was passed. 6. Objection was filed by State against the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner and a review application was also moved against the reference order. The genuineness of the copies of agenda and resolutions was admitted by the learned counsel for the parties on the copies existing in the file of the learned Addl. Commissioner. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant argued in support of the reference that notice issued to Ambika Prasad was defective as only construction was mentioned in it and there was no mention of boring of well and installing the pumping set and that as it was with permission of the Gaon Sabha, therefore, no action lay against the applicant. 9. It was argued in reply that as Board is seized with the matter the review application merges in the revision application alongwith and the objection filed by the State. 9. It was argued in reply that as Board is seized with the matter the review application merges in the revision application alongwith and the objection filed by the State. It was further argued that Ambika Prasad filed objection after taking adjournments through his father and was given opportunity to adduce evidence but he failed to take its advantage and the order was passed by the trial court after scrutinizing the evidence and the recommendation is not legally correct as the resolution shows that a permanent licence was granted to use the well for irrigation purposes by the admitted installation of pumping set by the applicant which was against law. Therefore the trial court's order should be maintained. 10. The review application against the reference order is not maintainable. It can be treated as an objection in the present case and will be deemed to have been disposed of by his order. 11. It is admitted case of the parties that the well in question is Gaon Sabha property and was not constructed for the use of Harijans of the locality. Section 9 of Act I of 1951 is not applicable to the present case as the applicant did not claim ownership of the well and the constructions in the well and land adjacent to it which is Gaon Sabha property. Even if the L.M.C. and Gaon Sabha and Chairman and some members permitted the use of the well with perpetual rights which is forbidden by law such possession is illegal. Even if the L.M.C. and Gaon Sabha and Chairman and some members permitted the use of the well with perpetual rights which is forbidden by law such possession is illegal. Section 112-B of Act I of 1951 used the word property vested under provisions of Act I of 1951 in the Gaon Sabha and if such property is damaged or misappropriated the Collector is empowered to take suo moto action and the Lekhpal is duty bound to report such matters, as in provided in that section in Rule 115-C(3) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules which runs as follows:- "(3) It shall be the duty of the Lekhpal to report to the Collector through the Tahsildar all cases of wrongful occupation of damage to and misappropriation of property vested in the Gaon Sabha as soon as they come to his notice and in any case after the conclusion of Kharif and Rabi Partal every year." In Charan Das v. Gaon Sabha, 1980 U.P.R.J. 1 it was held by me as follows:- "There is fundamental distinction between the capacity of a natural persons and of an artificial person, which has been created by a statute. To a natural person whatever is not expressly forbidden by law is permitted by law. He as the capacity to do any thing save and except those forbidden by law. In case of corporate body (e.g. the Land Management Committee and its Chairman which is creation of statute) the rule applicable to a natural person is reverse. Whatever is not permitted expressly or by necessary implication by the Act or Rules is prohibited not doctrine of ultra vires." A corporate body cannot indirectly do by placing itself under the disability of estoppel, what it could not have directly done by reason of statutory prohibition. Therefore no estoppel against the Gaon Sabha or L.M.C. can be pleaded in such a case under Section 115, Evidence Act, where the Chairman has acted in utter disregard of the provisions of Act. Every one has right to wajve and to agree to waive the advantage of law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in a private capacity which may be dispensed with without infringing any public right or public policy. Every one has right to wajve and to agree to waive the advantage of law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in a private capacity which may be dispensed with without infringing any public right or public policy. Where the statute imposes a duty of a positive kind not avoidable by the performance of any formality for the doing of the very act which he seeks to do, it is not open to the person in whose favour he did so to set up an estoppel to prevent it. The duty of each party is to obey the law. 12. Rule 115-S(1) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules which runs as follows prohibits the lease or licence in respect of any property vested in the Gaon Sabha exceeding one year except with the specific permission of the Government in the Revenue Department. "R. 115-S(1) No lease or licence in respect of any property vested in the Gaon Sabha shall be made for a period exceeding one year except with the specific permission of the Government in the Revenue Department and that no lease or licence shall be made in favour of a person except by public auction held in accordance with the procedure given below." 13. The Pradhan and L.M.C. committed breach of the prohibition laid down in Rule 115-S(1) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules which was added by notification No. 3266/I-A-1056-54 dated August 17, 1954 and substituted by notification No. 1145-RZ/I-A-1058-59 dated March 11, 1960 and by granting permission for perpetuity to the applicant to install pumping set and use the well to the detriment of its public purpose for which it was got constructed i.e. welfare of the Harijans of the locality. Such permission is void ab initio and it cannot be used as estoppel and waiver against the Gaon Sabha as held in 1980 U.P.R.J. 1 (supra). 14. The notice given to the applicant in Form 49-A was not defective in any way. In it pumping set, Nali and other constructions are all mentioned and specific plot number and its area and dimension of admitted construction is also mentioned and amount of proposed damages is also mentioned. Therefore the argument on behalf of the applicant that it is defective fails. 15. In it pumping set, Nali and other constructions are all mentioned and specific plot number and its area and dimension of admitted construction is also mentioned and amount of proposed damages is also mentioned. Therefore the argument on behalf of the applicant that it is defective fails. 15. On the admitted facts of the parties about the ownership of well and the land in question coupled with the fact that the applicant failed to show sufficient cause and the cause shown about the permission of the Gaon Sabha per its resolution being insufficient, illegal void ab initio the order of the trial court is highly justified and cannot be interfered with and the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner being contrary to law and misconceived cannot be accepted. 16. In view of the above, this revision application has got no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs.