Judgment K.P. Singh, J. 1. SABHAPATI, opposite party No. 2 in the present writ petition had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the Gaon Sabha and State of U. P. 2. THE aforesaid suit was decreed on 29-12-1970. THEreafter an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was moved on behalf of the State of 0. P. but the same was rejected. It appears that Gaon Sabha and the present petitioner Rajeshwar had filed two separate applications for seeting aside the exparte decree dated 29-12-1970 in favour of the contesting opposite party Sabhapati. The trial court through its judgment dated 13-3-1972 allowed the application filed by the Gaon Sabha for setting aside the exparte decree but had rejected the application moved by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had no right to move the application for setting aside the exparte decree in favour of the plaintiff opposite party no. 2 Sabha Pati. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff Sabhapati had preferred a revision petition recommended by the Commissioner, Varanasi division through his order dated 21-10-1972 to be rejected. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, through his impugned order dated 27-2-1976 has allowed the revision petition filed by the plaintiff Sabhapati, opposite party no. 2 in the present writ petition. Now, the petitioner Rajeshwar and another have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the judgment of the revisional court. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties in the present writ petition. One of the question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the present petitioner Rajeshwar can maintain the writ petition especially when his application for setting aside the exparte decree had been rejected by the trial court and he had not preferred any appeal. The application moved by the Gaon Sabha was no doubt allowed by the trial court but in revision at the instance of the plaintiff opposite party no. 2, the same has been set aside and the exparte decree in favour of the plaintiff stands, yet the Gaon Sabha has not filed the present writ petition. 4. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners being members of the village can maintain the present writ petition. 2, the same has been set aside and the exparte decree in favour of the plaintiff stands, yet the Gaon Sabha has not filed the present writ petition. 4. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the petitioners being members of the village can maintain the present writ petition. I had expressed my doubt to the learned counsel for the petitioners about maintainability of the present writ petition during the course of argument. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the ruling Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 SC 828 and had emphasized the following observations in paragraph 8 of the judgment :- ".........This Court held in the decision cited supra that "ordinarily" the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution should be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject matter of the petition. A personal right need not be in respect of a proprietary interest ; it can also relate to an interest of a trustee. That apart, in exceptional cases as the expression "ordinarily" indicates, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject matter thereof. The appellant has certainly been prejudiced by the said order. The' petition under Article 226 of the Constitution at his instance, is therefore, maintainable." 5. TO my mind the above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioners have no right or title in the disputed land. Moreover, the petitioners had filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree in favour of the contesting opposite party Sabhapati and his application was rejected on the ground that he had no right to maintain that application. The petitioners did not pursue that matter and remained satisfied with the order in favour of the Gaon Sabha. The petitioners are also claiming right in the disputed property against the Gaon Sabha on the ground of their possession for more than statutory period in the disputed land. In such a circumstance I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners have no vestige of title to the disputed land nor are they entitled to maintain the present writ petition. In such a circumstance I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioners have no vestige of title to the disputed land nor are they entitled to maintain the present writ petition. 6. AS regards the petitioners contention that they have a right to maintain the writ petition being residents of the village, it is sufficient to indicate that according to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 247 of 1972 Ambika Singh v. Bhagauti Singh in view of the provisions of Rules 128 and 129 of the Gaon Samaj Manual, it is only a member of the Land Management Committee who can take action regarding the property belonging to the Gaon Sabha. Even that member should be authorised by the Chairman or by a resolution of the Committee. Since the petitioners were neither members of the Land Management Committee nor were they authorised to take action on behalf of the Gaon Sabha either by the Chairman or by a resolution of the Committee, I think they cannot plead the cause of Gaon Sabha in the present writ petition. If they have any easementary right in the disputed land, they can seek their remedy in competent court. To my mind it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned orders, in the present writ petition at the instance of the present petitioners. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.