JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This is a revision filed Manzoor Ali against the order dated 30-6-1977 passed by Additional Commissioner Faizabad. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The facts giving rise to this revision are that Gaon Sabha Singaria, Tehsil Tarabganj, District Gonda authorised Qamaruddin to take legal steps against the revisionist who had encroached upon the Gaon Sabha land. Qamaruddin then filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the revisionist in the trial Court. In the trial Court an application was given on behalf of the revisionist that the suit was not maintainable because a private counsel Sri Virendra Singh had filed a suit whereas according to Gaon Samaj Manual no private counsel can file a Gaon Samaj suit. The trial Court rejected this application dated 15-12-1976 holding that the Gaon Samaj had authorised Sri Qamaruddin to file the suit. He had filed the suit under his own signatures and even though a private counsel was also engaged. The D.G.C. (R) also signed the plaint and therefore there was no illegality in filing the suit. The revisionist preferred a revision against this order which was also rejected by the Additional Commissioner. He then filed this revision before the Board. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that in view of the para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual no private counsel can file any suit on behalf of the Goan Sabha. It could only be done by panel lawyer i.e. D.G.C. (R) appointed by the State. Para 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual reads as follows: 131:-Lawyers have been appointed who shall represent the Land Management Committee and give it legal advice where necessary. (The Committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the panel lawyers appointed. In important cases, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific permission of the Collector in writing). From the plain reading of the above it is evident that the Land Management Committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the panel lawyer for doing the case of Gaon Sabha and in case it is found necessary to engage some special lawyers looking to the importance of the case, then with specific permission of the Collector of the District in writing should be obtained for the purpose. The only question to be considered is as to whether the present suit was filed by Sri Virendra Singh a private counsel or it would be taken to have been filed by the D.G.C. (R). On perusal of plaint I find that the pliant was filed by Qamaruddin who was authorised by Land Management Committee to file the suit. No doubt he had engaged a private counsel who had signed the plaint but it alone could not invalidate the suit because the D.G.C. (R) has also signed the plaint and it would be deemed that it was filed by Qamaruddin under the guidance or legal advice of the D.G.C. (R) who himself has appended his signature thereto and therefore the provisions of Para 131 of the U.P. Gaon Samaj Manual have not been contravened. I thus find no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the suit was not maintainable. 5. He further argued that there is no vakalatnama filed by D.G.C. (R) and therefore it was not sufficient compliance of Para 131 of the U.P. Gaon Samaj Manual even if he had appended his signature in the plaint. To my mind this argument also does not hold good. Section 127-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is very clear on this point. It reads as follows: 127-B:-The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed appoint, either generally or in any case or for any specified class of cases, in respect of Gaon Sabha of such local areas as may be specified, one of more legal practitioners to be called Panel Lawyers. (2) A panel Lawyer may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), appear, plead and act, without any written authority on behalf of any Gaon Sabha of the area for which he is appointed, before any Court in any suit or other case, of which he has charge, by or against the Gaon Sabha. (3) A panel lawyer in any Court shall be the agent of the Gaon Sabha of the area for which he is appointed for the purpose of receiving processes against such Gaon Sabha issued by such Court. (3) A panel lawyer in any Court shall be the agent of the Gaon Sabha of the area for which he is appointed for the purpose of receiving processes against such Gaon Sabha issued by such Court. (4) No Panel Lawyer shall, without the prior sanction of the Land Management Committee accorded by its resolution, enter into any agreement or compromise with reference to or withdraw from, any suit or other proceeding on behalf of a Gaon Sabha. Para 1 of this section makes it clear that Panel Lawyer for doing the cases of Gaon Sabha be appointed by the State Government and sub-section 2 authorises the said Panel Lawyer so called D.G.C. (R) to appear, plead and act without any written authority on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Thus it is clear from the bare reading of sub-section 2 of Section 127 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that no vakalatnama as such was required to be filed by the D.G.C. (R) on behalf of Gaon Sabha and therefore the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist appears to be without force. The learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the decision of the Board reported in R.D. 1971 Page 131 and R.D. 1977 Page 43 but these rulings are not applicable to the present case. In R.D. 1971 it was held that a private counsel could not file an appeal even if he was authorised by Pradhan. In R.D. 1977 it was held that a private counsel could not file any suit on behalf of Gaon Sabha even if he was authorised by the resolution of the Gaon Sabha unless a permission from the Collector was obtained to that effect. What I find here that Qamaruddin was authorised to file a suit on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and he filed the said suit. It is also evident that no doubt a private counsel was also engaged by him but under legal advice of D.G.C. (R) the present suit was filed. It is evident from the record that merely because a private counsel was also engaged for assistance of D.G.C. (R) for that particular suit could not invalidate the suit. It is of course a matter apart from the judicial purview as to who would pay for the remuneration of the private counsel. That is Qamaruddin to worry about it. It is evident from the record that merely because a private counsel was also engaged for assistance of D.G.C. (R) for that particular suit could not invalidate the suit. It is of course a matter apart from the judicial purview as to who would pay for the remuneration of the private counsel. That is Qamaruddin to worry about it. Nevertheless the plaint filed was a valid one and in the circumstances the trial Court rightly rejected the application dated 16-12-1976 filed by the revisionist and the order of the learned Additional Commissioner was perfectly valid in dismissing the perfectly valid in dismissing the revision filed by the revisionist. 6. On the observations made above, the revision is without force and is hereby dismissed.