JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - These are two connected revisions and two Second appeals filed by two defendants. 2. Both the learned counsels for the parties agreed that the two connected revisions have become infractuous as they were against the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner vacating the stay orders which have become infructuous as the connected first appeals have been decided on merits and against the judgment and decree of first appeal. These two second appeals have been preferred. The two revisions are, therefore, hereby rejected. 3. Two suits were filed by the Land Management Committee with common allegations. Suits No. for plot No. 82, 2 bighas 12 biswas 18 dhur was regarding second appeal No. 195 and second appeal No. 196 is concerned with suit No. 141 for plot No. 147, two bighas. 4. The two second appeals are against the judgment and decree dated February 3, 1975 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra division, Agra, confirming the judgment and decree of Assistant Collector Ist Class, district Aligarh dated August 14, 1973 decreeing plaintiff's suit for declaration ejectment and damages claimed. 5. The L.M.C. filed two suits on April 5, 1973 with the allegations that the defendants have taken wrongful possession in 1377 Fasli on the basis of order of S.D.O. dated May 2, 1969 ordering the defendants to be recorded as Sirdars to which the L.M.C. was not party, that the defendants be ejected and be declared not to be Sirdars of the disputed land and damages of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 4300/- per annum respectively be awarded. 6. The suits were contested by the defendants with the allegations that they were in possession since long before the said order were passed by the S.D.O. that the suit is not maintainable as no proper resolution was passed, that the order of the S.D.O. has become final and they are not liable to ejectment. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding both the appeals together as common questions of law and fact are involved and have perused the record. This judgment shall govern both the second appeals. Its copy shall be placed on the file of the connected appeal. 8. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding both the appeals together as common questions of law and fact are involved and have perused the record. This judgment shall govern both the second appeals. Its copy shall be placed on the file of the connected appeal. 8. It has been argued that the suit under Sections 229-B/209 is not maintainable and is not maintainable by the L.M.C. that the mandatory provisions of para 128 of Gaon Samaj Manual have not been complied with the suit were liable to be thrown out on this ground that it has not been provided to be Gaon Sabha property, that the order dated May 2, 1969 passed by the S.D.O. has become final which was passed under Section 246 of Act I of 1951 and has got effect of res judicata; that in any case the damages are excessive and are not based on any criteria. Reliance has been placed on 1976 R.D. Vol II page 316, 1980 R.D. page 40 and 1969 R.D. page 356. 9. It has been argued in reply that the suit under Sections 229 and 209 is maintainable; that a resolution dated September 16, 1972 and its ratification by resolution dated June 25, 1973 comply the provisions of para 128 of Gaon Sabha Manual and were passed by Gram Panchayat as no. L.M.C. was constituted and the suit was instituted for L.M.C. by the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat who was authorised to do so, that the property is Gaon Sabha property and the statement of Pradhan has not been challenged that the order dated May 2, 1969 in a summary proceedings does not operate as resjudicata that the damages claimed and awarded on the statement of the Pradhan were not challenged and no evidence was led against it. 10. The reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the said three rulings to the effect that compliance of paragraph 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual is mandatory is not disputed. In the present case it is admitted fact that L.M.C. was not constituted. Section 28-A(i) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for establishment of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is in force from July 18, 1962, provides that the Gaon Panchayat of every Gaon Sabha shall establish a committee to be known as the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) to assist it in the discharge of its duties. Section 28-A(i) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act for establishment of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti is in force from July 18, 1962, provides that the Gaon Panchayat of every Gaon Sabha shall establish a committee to be known as the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) to assist it in the discharge of its duties. Its proviso provides that where the State Government so direct, the Goan Panchayat shall constitute a Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti for each such portion of the area of the Gaon Sabha as may be specified by the State Government Proviso (2) of Section 28 provides that the Pradhan and the Up Pradhan shall respectively be the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandahak Samiti. It sub-section (4) provides that until the Bhumi Prabandhak Simiti for a Gaon Sabha has been constituted under this section, the corresponding committee constituted under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and functioning for the area of the Gaon Sabha immediately before commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Samiti and Zila Praishads Adhiniyam, 1961, shall continue to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred by this act upon the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and shall be deemed to be Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti established under this Act. It is thus clear that as the L.M.C. was not constituted the Gram Panchayat was acting as L.M.C. and it passed the said resolutions which sufficiently complied para 128 of Gaon Sabha Manual. The first resolution was passed by 5 members out of all 8 members of the Gram Panchayat and the second was passed by 4 persons which was an adjourned meeting thus required no quoram. Therefore, I hold that the resolutions were passed had sufficiently complied the provisions of para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual and there is no defect and the suits were rightly held to the maintainable. The functions to be carried out by the L.M.C. are mentioned in Section 28-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Its sub-section (1)(9) provides for the conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Gaon Sabha relating to or arising out of the functions of the Samiti. The functions to be carried out by the L.M.C. are mentioned in Section 28-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. Its sub-section (1)(9) provides for the conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Gaon Sabha relating to or arising out of the functions of the Samiti. The Pradhan of the Goan Sabha working as Chairman of the L.M.C. constituted by members of the Gram Panchayat as L.M.C. was not established according to Section 28-A of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, filed the suits had all legal authority for prosecuting the suits against the defendants and rightly prosecuted the suits which are maintainable and para 28 of the Gaon Sabha Manual has been complied and the suits were rightly not thrown out for non-compliance of the said para as it was sufficiently complied with. 11. It is true that the suit under Section 229-B by Gaon Sabha or L.M.C. is not maintainable but declaratory suit by Goan Sabha is maintainable under Section 229-B for the declaration of the rights claimed by the defendants and the further relief as required by proviso of Section 229 of Act I of 1951 has been asked as the defendants are alleged to have taken forcible possession in 1377 Fasli and Section 209(1)(b) entitles a Gaon Sabha to file suit for ejectment of trespassers over its land and is entitled to claim damages also. 12. The suits have been filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha as chairman of the L.M.C. by the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat working as L.M.C. which was not constituted therefore, will be deemed to have been filed by Gaon Sabha which is not a functioning body but connotes territorial jurisdiction of the Gaon Sabha which was introduced in place of Gaon Samajes and the suits are filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha on the resolution of Land Management Committee by Pradhan of the Goan Sabha which has been complied with in the present case and the suits will be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The area of the village or villages which constitute one Gaon Sabha is called its circle and it has jurisdiction of the land in its circle. Every persons whose name is for the time being included in the electoral roll for a Gaon Sabha shall be member of that Gaon Sabha. The area of the village or villages which constitute one Gaon Sabha is called its circle and it has jurisdiction of the land in its circle. Every persons whose name is for the time being included in the electoral roll for a Gaon Sabha shall be member of that Gaon Sabha. As soon as a Gaon Sabha is established its execution committee called Gaon Panchayat is constituted under Section 12 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, therefore the name of the Gaon Sabha for a circle is only name for a territorial jurisdiction and its functions are carried out by Gram Panchayat. Where L.M.C. is not constituted which is if constituted which is if constituted become another executive body regarding management of Gaon Sabha's land only. The disputed land had been Gaon Sabha property. The statement of Pradhan has not been rebutted, therefore, it is sufficiently proved that in the consolidation the disputed land was allotted for Gaon Sabha. 13. The order dated May 2, 1969 under Section 246(5) to which the Gaon Sabha was no a party is only in a summary proceeding and does not operate as res judicata as the Gaon Sabha was not a party to it. It is a provision only for determination of rent payable by Bhumidhars Sirdars but it never entitled the Assistant Collector In-charge of the Sub-Division to declare any persons as Bhumidhar or Sirdar of any land, therefore, the order of the S.D.O. in question in a summary proceeding has got no effect against Gaon Sabha who came to know of it just before filing the suit when they took forcible possession. 14. The oral evidence adduced by the defendants is not sufficient to prove the possession of the defendants of more than 12 years prior to 1969 and continuous possessions afterwards as there is no entry for their possession prior to 1377 Fasli. 15. It is common knowledge that in such cases the persons to grab the Gaon Sabha's land obtained ex-parte orders and kept mum for a sufficiently long period then trespass over Gaon Sabha's land to establish rights on the basis of such orders obtained stealthily. In the present case also it has happened so. 16. 15. It is common knowledge that in such cases the persons to grab the Gaon Sabha's land obtained ex-parte orders and kept mum for a sufficiently long period then trespass over Gaon Sabha's land to establish rights on the basis of such orders obtained stealthily. In the present case also it has happened so. 16. The damages awarded by the trail court are not excessive keeping in view the areas of the disputed plots together with the statement of the Pradhan which was neither challenged nor rebutted on behalf of the contesting defendants. 17. In the view of the above this appeals have got no force. They are liable to be dismissed with costs although and the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed. 18. Let the trial court's record be sent to it at once for necessary action.