ORDER K. N. Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 23-1-1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi. The land in dispute was ordered to be recorded in the name of Bimla Devi, opposite party 3. On behalf of Gaon Sabha Ram Dular had filed an appeal. This appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Court of the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits. Opposite party 3 thereupon filed a revision which has been allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 23-1-1982. In the revision also a compromise was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha after taking permission of the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22-7-1981. The permission to file the compromise was accorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 18-7-1981. D.G.C. Revenue had also signed the compromise application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and in the compromise it was stated that the Gaon Sabha has no concern with the land in dispute. Ram Dular in spite of it pursued the revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 23-1-1982. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. N. Upadhya, contended that Ram Dular being a resident and one of the members of the Land Management Committee had got a right to file an appeal against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer by which the name of opposite party 3 Bimla Devi was directed to be mutated as heir and successor of the deceased tenure-holder Smt. Mahadei. He contended that the appeal filed by Ram Dular was competent and he could also contest the revision on behalf of the Gaon Sabha although no resolution of the Land Management Committee was passed authorising him to file the appeal or to pursue the revision. I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This question came up for consideration before me in Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1982 All L J 76, wherein it was held that : "A person cannot initiate legal proceedings on behalf of or for the benefit of another without any authority from that other. This question came up for consideration before me in Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1982 All L J 76, wherein it was held that : "A person cannot initiate legal proceedings on behalf of or for the benefit of another without any authority from that other. Para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual provides the procedure and the manner in which suits or proceedings can be filed and conducted on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the same has got to be done in that particular manner. The Gaon Sabha is a body corporate and the Land Management Committee is an executive body of the Gaon Sabha charged with the functions to supervise and protect the property vested in the gaon Sabha and it has to function in the manner sanctioned under law. The provisions contained in Para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual and R. 110A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules prescribe the manner in which the litigation is to be conducted by and on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. These provisions, which are mandatory, would govern the litigations, to be conducted on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in all proceedings under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Where an objection under S. 9A (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of land leased by the Gaon Sabha is filed by a private person without any authority of Gaon Sabha and/or of Land Management Committee ''authorising that person to file objection, appeal and revision, the objection filed by that person was wholly incompetent and the orders passed thereon and in appeal and revision therefrom were wholly without jurisdiction, more so when the action of that person in filing objection, appeal or revision was not ratified by the Land Management Committee." In the present case it is not disputed that no resolution was passed authorising the petitioner Ram Dular to file appeal or to pursue the revision filed on behalf of Bimla Devi. The action of Ram Dular in filing the appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was also not ratified by the Gaon Sabha. On the contrary in the revision a compromise was filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha after obtaining valid sanction from the Sub-Divisional Officer on 18-7-1981. The action of Ram Dular in filing the appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was also not ratified by the Gaon Sabha. On the contrary in the revision a compromise was filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha after obtaining valid sanction from the Sub-Divisional Officer on 18-7-1981. D.G.C. Revenue had also admitted before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and had signed the compromise wherein it was staled that the land in dispute does not belong to the Gaon Sabha. In this view of the matter the action of Ram Dular in filing the appeal does not appear to have been ratified by the Land Management Committee. The appeal was, therefore, incompetent and the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer was, therefore, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The same has been rightly set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that since Smt. Mahadei died issue less and, therefore, the land is dispute vested in the Gaon Sabha by rule of escheat and the petitioner being a member of the Gaon Sabha has got a right to defend Gaon Sabha Property and was, therefore, competent to file an appeal and to contest the revision filed on behalf of Bimla Devi and the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted illegally in allowing the revision and setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by which he had allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits. 4. I am unable to agree with this contention. The said argument is wholly misconceived in view of the decision given in Sita Ram's case (1982 All L J 76) (supra). It is well settled that no person can plead for another without being authorised by him in that behalf. It is a basic principle of law that a person cannot initiate legal proceedings on behalf of or for the benefit of another without any authority from that other. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. See Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) at p. 257. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. See Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) at p. 257. Similar view was taken by Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Shanti Lal, AIR 1969 SC 634 at p. 654 following the well-known decision of Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426. Whether the land in dispute is a Gaon Sabha property or not is a disputed question of fact. Had there been no dispute with regard to it every resident of the village could come forward to assert that the property belongs to the Gaon Sabha and the trespasser should be dragged out. In the present case opposite party 3 Bimla Devi filed an objection saying that she is the heir and successor of the deceased tenure-holder Smt. Mahadei. The question, therefore, to be decided was whether Smt. Mahadei died issueless or not. If she had died issueless the property vested in the Gaon Sabha and it could be recorded by the consolidation authorities even without filing an objection in that behalf by the Gaon Sabha as is provided under S. 11-C of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the present case before the Consolidation Officer a compromise was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha accepting the claim of Smt. Bimla Devi to be the heir and successor of Smt. Mahadei, deceased tenure-holder. Before the Deputy Director of Consolidation a compromise was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha after obtaining valid permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer accepting that the land in dispute does not belong to the Gaon Sabha and Bimla Devi is the heir and successor of Smt. Mahadei, deceased tenure-holder. Thus the property did not vest in the Gaon Sabha by rule of escheat. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that the petitioner on account of enmity is pursuing this matter. The petitioner Ram Dular had, therefore, no locus standi to file the appeal without being authorised in that behalf as was required under law. The appeal filed by him was, therefore, incompetent. He could not proceed to file appeal asserting that the property belongs to the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner Ram Dular had, therefore, no locus standi to file the appeal without being authorised in that behalf as was required under law. The appeal filed by him was, therefore, incompetent. He could not proceed to file appeal asserting that the property belongs to the Gaon Sabha. The proper course for him was to approach the Gaon Sabha for getting a resolution passed for contesting the claim of Smt. Bimla Devi and if the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, as is asserted on behalf of the petitioner, had colluded with Smt. Bimla Devi he could approach the Sub-Divisional Officer or the District Magistrate intimating the said fact. This has not been done in the present case. The petitioner, therefore, could not assert that the property in question belonged to the Gaon Sabha and he had a right to file an appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation or to contest the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. In view of the above do not find any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine.