JUDGMENT R.S. SINGH, J. 1. THE writ petition is directed against the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 1st May 1972 allowing the revision and remanding the case to the lower court. 2. THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners were recorded as tenure-holders in the basic year khatauni. An objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha on the allegation that the land in dispute is of public utility and the petitioners are not the tenure-holders of the same. THE Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of the Gaon Sabha and maintained the basic year entry. An appeal was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the ground that the UP Pradhan or the members had no legal authority to file appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and, therefore, the appeal was found to be incompetent and was dismissed as not maintainable. A revision was preferred on behalf of the Gaon Sabha which was allowed and the case was remanded to the lower court for deciding the same on merits. THE petitioners have come UP before this Court challenging the above order of the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of the present writ petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the appeal filed by UP Pradhan was without any authority any valid resolution of the Gaon Sabha Land Management Committee. Hence the appeal was incompetent and the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error in holding that the appeal was maintainable. According s to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, only Pradhan is a right person to file an appeal after obtaining the resolution of the Land Management Committee and the UP Pradhan has got no right at all to file appeal in absence of any specific authority by Pradhan or by the resolution of the Gaon Sabha. In the present case, there was no valid resolution of the Land Management Committee authorising the UP Pradhan to file appeal and therefore, appeal filed by UP Pradhan was incompetent. In the present case, there was no valid resolution of the Land Management Committee authorising the UP Pradhan to file appeal and therefore, appeal filed by UP Pradhan was incompetent. He referred to various provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Rules and Gaon Sabha Manual and placed reliance in Ram Nawaz v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1967 AWR 765, Gram Samaj Kairadih v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1969 RD 356, Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 ALJ 76, Gaon Sabha Lachamanpatti v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1982 ACJ 371. 3. IN reply to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that firstly, the appeal was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the UP Pradhan was authorised by valid resolution to file the appeal by the Land Management Committee. Secondly, the appeal was signed and filed by the penal lawyer for the Gaon Sabha under the direction of the Collector. So the appeal was properly filed and the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed no error in allowing the revision and holding that the appeal was maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to various provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and Gaon Sabha Manual regarding filing appeal by the Penal lawyer for the Gaon Sabha and the instructions issued by the Collector for that purpose. IN support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to Gaon Sabha v. Ram Karan Singh, 1981 RD 1. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. Before considering the merits of the case, it is necessary to refer some provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) ; U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules) and U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual (hereinafter referred to as Manual; in respect of the matter in controversy. According to Section 3 (9) of the Act, Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchayat and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) shall have the meaning assigned to them in U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Chapater II of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act deals with the establishment and constitution of the Gaon Sabha. According to Section 3 (9) of the Act, Gaon Sabha, Gaon Panchayat and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) shall have the meaning assigned to them in U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Chapater II of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act deals with the establishment and constitution of the Gaon Sabha. According to Section 4 of this Act Gaon Sabha is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and, subject to any restriction or condition imposed by or under this or any other Act, has power to acquire, by purchase, gift or otherwise, to hold, administer, and transfer property both movable and immovable, and to enter into any contract and shall by the said name, sue or be sued. After the establishment of the Gaon Sabha its executive body called 'Gaon Panchayat' is constituted under section 12 of this Act. In view of Section 28 (A) of this Act the Gaon Panchayat of every Gaon Sabha shall establish a committee to be known as Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) to assist it in the discharge of its duties of UP-keep, protection and sUPervision of all property vested in the Gaon Sabha under section 117 of the Act and all other property vesting in it or coming into its possession under any other provision of that Act provided that the Pradhan and the UP Pradhan shall respectively be the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti and the Lekhpal of the area of the Gaon Sabha shall be the Secretary. Section 28 (V) deals with the functions of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti for and on behalf of the Gaon Panchayat which is charged with the general management, preservation and control of all property and 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 besides other suits. Under section 33 of this Act, Gaon Sabha has, also power to acquire land as provided under the provisions of this Section. Section 117 of the Act is provision under which certain property vested in the State vests in the Gaon Sabha. Property so vested in the Gaon Sabha in accordance with Section 117 of the Act shall be managed by the Land Management Committee as provided under section 122 (A) of the Act. Section 117 of the Act is provision under which certain property vested in the State vests in the Gaon Sabha. Property so vested in the Gaon Sabha in accordance with Section 117 of the Act shall be managed by the Land Management Committee as provided under section 122 (A) of the Act. Functions and duties of the Land Management Committee shall include the conduct and prosecution of suit and proceeding by or against the Gaon Sabha. The above discussions of the provisions show that the Gaon Sabha acquires land in more than one way's. One of the ways of acquiring land by Goan Sabha is as provided under section 33 and other provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Gaon Sabha also gets land according to the provisions of the Act. The management of the land vested in Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the Act and the functions of the Land Management Committee are governed by the provisions of the Act. For the Gaon Sabha property and its management, concerning provisions of the Act and Rules and necessary instructions of the State Government are given in the Manual. In view of explanation 1 of Rule 115-B of the Rules, the directions contained in the Manual shall be deemed to be the directions issued in accordance with Rule 115-A of the Rules. 5. GAON Sabha is a corporate body which is capable for acquiring property and by the said name can sue or be sued. The Act has made certain provisions under which the GAON Sabha may file suit against any person or be sued by any person in respect of the property which has vested in the GAON Sabha under the provisions of the Act. In a case of an individual, he alone is competent to deal with his property in whatsoever manner he likes but in case of GAON Sabha property, it being a corporate body, has power to deal with the same but the State has also overall power to deal with the property of the GAON Sabha as provided under the Act. Therefore, in any dispute about the GAON Sabha property, the GAON Sabha has a right to file a suit to protect the land and to eject a trespasser. Therefore, in any dispute about the GAON Sabha property, the GAON Sabha has a right to file a suit to protect the land and to eject a trespasser. But in case the GAON Sabha is failing its duty, the Collector has got power to proceed to take action to eject a trespasser from the GAON Sabha land. For instance, a person in unauthorised possession may be ejected in a regular suit filed on behalf of the GAON Sabha under section 209 of the Act asweli as in a proceeding under section 122-B. But where the Land Management Committee has failed to take action as required by law, the Collector shall proceed to take action against the person in unauthorised possession under various provisions of the Rules. Chapter VI of the Manual deals with the GAON Sabha resolution. Para 128 of this Manual requires resolution of the Land Management Committee and in urgent cases, the Chairman can take action and seek permission of the Land Management Committee by including in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting. According to Section 129 of the Manual, the Chairman shall sign an application or a written statement and application on its behalf. In absence of the Chairman, the work will be done by the member of the Committee authorised by the Chairman. If no member has been authorised by the Chairman, the Committee may authorise a member by resolution. Ram Nawaz v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Supra) is a case wherein it was held that a member of the GAON Sabha is not entitled to prefer objection in respect of the GAON Sabha land under section 9 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act without authorization of the Land Management Committee. In Gram Samaj Kairadih v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (Supra) it has been held that the Chairman of the Land Management Committee could not have filed a written statement or preferred an appeal or revision without the Land Management Committee having passed a resolution or the action of the Chairman being ratified by the Land Management Committee in the next ensuing meeting. In GAON Sabha Lachamanpatti v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (Supra) it has been held that the appeal filed by a member on behalf of the GAON Sabha without being authorised in that behalf has no locus standi to file appeal. In GAON Sabha Lachamanpatti v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (Supra) it has been held that the appeal filed by a member on behalf of the GAON Sabha without being authorised in that behalf has no locus standi to file appeal. The appeal filed by him was held to be incompetent. In Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (SUPra) it has been held that a person cannot initiate legal proceeding on behalf of or for the benefit of another without any authority from the other. On the objection under section 9-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by person without authority of the GAON Sabha, orders passed were held to be wholly without jurisdiction. 6. THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the above decisions relied Upon by him are to the effect 'that the appeal can be filed only by the Chairman and in his absence, by any member authorised by him or by resolution of the Land Management Committee. According to the facts of the case, there was a resolution authorising the UP Pradhan to file the appeal but there is a controversy about the validity of the resolution. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the meeting of the Land Management Committee was not properly convened and, therefore, the resolution passed by such a Committee was invalid. But according to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee was in collusion with other side was not willing to call the meeting or to file an appeal. So the meeting was called on 29-8-1971 by UP Pradhan and other members of the Land Management Committee and in that meeting UP Pradhan was authorised to file appeal. Hence the meeting was properly convened and the UP Pradhan was rightly authorised in the meeting to file the appeal. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that as the Chairman was not calling the meeting and the time of appeal was expiring, the penal lawyer with the approval of the Collector had filed the appeal. According to Section 127-B of the Act, a penal lawyer is competent to act and plead without any written authority on behalf of the Gaon Sabha before any Court in a, suit or in any other case. According to Section 127-B of the Act, a penal lawyer is competent to act and plead without any written authority on behalf of the Gaon Sabha before any Court in a, suit or in any other case. THE only restriction placed on his rights is that no penal lawyer shall without the prior sanction of the Land Management Committee accorded by its resolution, enter any agreement or compromise with reference to or withdraw from any suit or other proceeding on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Rule 116 of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Neeyam Sangrah gives power to the Collector to give direction to file appeal to the penal lawyer. In this case, according to the finding given by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, the appeal was filed by the penal lawyer under the direction of the Collector. In view of the above discussions, it is celear that the appeal could be filed by the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and in his absence, by any member authorised by him or by a resolution of the Land Management Committee. The appeal could also be filed by the penal lawyer under the direction of the Collector. In Gaon Sabha v. Ram Karon Singh (Supra) the following has been held :- "The State Government retains power to control the working of any Land Management Committee and to issue orders and directions to it as on occasion may require. Neither was a resolution of the Gaon Sabha required for filing the appeal nor was any written authority needed to do so. From the language employed in paragraph 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual it appears that it would not otherwise apply to an appeal which is filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in this Court. But that apart the requirement of filing a vakalatnama as laid down by Rule 4 of Order 3 is not applicable to the case of a counsel appointed by the State Government. Even under the Rules of the High Court and the settled practice prevailed an appeal can be filed on behalf of the State without a written authority or a vakalatnama. So apart from Rule 127-B, the appeal could not be dismissed." 7. Even under the Rules of the High Court and the settled practice prevailed an appeal can be filed on behalf of the State without a written authority or a vakalatnama. So apart from Rule 127-B, the appeal could not be dismissed." 7. IN view of the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that the appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha could be filed on behalf of the Chairman or by any member authorised by him or by the resolution of the Land Management Committee. But in case Gaon Sabha is failing its duty and is not inclined to file the appeal, the penal lawyer, on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, is competent to file appeal under the direction of the Collector. The view taken by the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation that the procedure which has been adopted for filing appeal in this case cannot be said to be illegal, is in accordance with law and needs no interference in the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 8. IN the result, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.