JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under Rule 115-C of the UP ZA and LR Rules. 2. SRI Jaipal Singh, Pradhan, Land Management Committee, Sultanpatti filed an application against Nanak Chand (opposite party no. 4 in the present writ petition) for ejectment and damages on the allegations that the aforesaid Nanak Chand had encroached on plot no. 69 measuring 0.44 acres. The objector asserted that he had bonafide title to the disputed land and that the civil court had jurisdiction to eject the objector. The Tahsildar through his order dated 14-11-1973 dropped the proceedings against the contesting opposite party Nanak Chand as is evident from Annexure 'B' attached with the writ petition. Against the order of the Tahsildar, Gaon Sabha filed revision petition which was recommended to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 16-10-1974 (see Annexure 'C attached with the writ petition). Thereafter an objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha through the District Government Counsel against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner as is evident from Annexure 'D' attached with the writ petition. The revision petition has been dismissed by Sri P. C. Saxena, I. A. S. Member Board of Revenue through his order dated 30th November, 1977. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court the Gaon Sabha has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the learned Member has patently erred in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable. It has suggested that if the revision petition was defective, the petitioner should have been afforded an opportunity to cure the defect. If the petitioner had failed to cure the defect the learned Member could dismiss the revision petition, but before affording an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defect, if any, he has exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in not examining the claim of the petitioner on merits. 4. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the order passed by the revisional authority is quite correct. According to him paragraph 131 of U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual is mandatory. 4. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the order passed by the revisional authority is quite correct. According to him paragraph 131 of U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual is mandatory. If the revision petition was not prosecuted by the counsel of the Gaon Sabha before the Board of Revenue, it was rightly rejected. He has also emphasised that in view of the decision reported in Babu Lal v. G. S. Hashimi, 1959 RD 172 a bonafide question of title arises, hence the proceedings were rightly dropped by the Tahsildar and the same has been maintained by the revisional court, hence no interference should be made with the impugned judgments. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments attached with the writ petition and other documents also. 5. IT is note-worthy that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Land Management Committee Nainu Patti through Pradhan Gaon Samaj, Pargana and district Mathura v. Board of Revenue, U. P. Allahabad, 1965 RD 349 has observed as below vide paragraphs 6 and 7 of his judgment :- "Paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is only a a direction given by the State Government to the Land Management Committee and has not the force of statutory law. Non-compliance of it cannot be considered to be fatal to the presentation of the writ petition or the appointment of a private counsel for the Land Management Committee. The High Court will not go into this question when there is no legal prohibition in the Act or the Rules made in this respect for engaging a private counsel for the conduct of a litigation on behalf of the Gaon Samaj so far as the High Court is concerned." (see Head Note 'A'). 6. IN Gaon Samaj Kairadih through Sabhapati Ram Ujagar, Jaunpur v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1969 RD 356 a learned Single Judge of this Court has also followed the ruling reported in Land Management Committee Nainu Patti v. Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad, 1965 RD 349 and has emphasised that paragraph 131 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual as it stands at present must, therefore, be regarded as directory. In Gaon Sabha v. Uma Shankar, 1971 RD 131 a learned Member Board of Revenue has observed as below :- " The second appeal has not been filed by the counsel of the Gaon Sabha, the appeal has been filed by a private counsel who was authorised by the Pradhan. It is an unusual course, when the rules prescribed that the appeal will be filed by a lawyer from the panel. The Pradhan by himself, not authorised by a resolution, cannot file an appeal. Held that the appeal is incompetent." 7. BEFORE me it has been emphasised by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party Nanak Chand that the learned Member was fully justified in dismissing the revision petition in the circumstances of the present case. 8. PARAGRAPH 131 of the U. P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual reads as below :- "Lawyers have been appointed who shall represent the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) and give it legal advice where necessary. The Committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the panel lawyer appointed. In important cases, however, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific provision of the Collector in writing. There is a Vakil or mukhtar in each tahsil and one civil and one revenue lawyer at the district headquarters. The District Government Counsel is incharge of the whole work." "G. O. No. C-5777/VIII-B/F-1939-53 dated 30th March, 1954 Panel Lawyers cannot be engaged by Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti directly. They can be engaged with the sanction of Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer. The Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti has to engage panel lawyer and no other unless so specifically authorised. This permission is to be given in cases where there is some intricacy of Panel Lawyer is apprehended to collude with the adversary. It has been directed in G. O. No. 2550 (M) ID 2020 D/6 dated 12th 1262 that at each stage fresh sanction is necessary. Even if the counsel has appeared in the original suit sanction for his appearance in appeal is necessary. It has been directed in G. O. No. 2550 (M) ID 2020 D/6 dated 12th 1262 that at each stage fresh sanction is necessary. Even if the counsel has appeared in the original suit sanction for his appearance in appeal is necessary. In lower Courts sanction of Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer is required and in High Court sanction of Government has to be obtained by the Collector." In the present case revision petition was filed against the judgment of the Tahsildar before the Commissioner, district Agra and the revision petition was heard and recommended to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner through his order dated 16-10-1974. An objection was filed to the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner by a District Government Counsel, Agra. In such a circumstance when reference was heard by the learned Member Board of Revenue and the standing counsel for the Gaon Sabha stated that he had no instructions in the matter it was proper for the learned Member to issue notice to the District Government Counsel who had filed the objection, or an opportunity should have been given to Sri Madan Behari Lal, Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha for prosecuting the claim of the Gaon Sabha to remove the defect, if any, or to produce necessary sanction of the Sub-Divisional Officer or Collector authorising him to prosecute the claim of Gaon Sabha in the case. 9. AS the learned Member has not followed proper procedure and has dismissed the revision petition filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, I think that he has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and has acted illegally in dismissing the revision petition on the statement of the counsel of the Gaon Sabha appearing in the Board of Revenue to the effect that he had no instructions in the matter. It was necessary for the learned Member to appraise the circumstances that the revision petition was filed by a proper person and an objection to the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner was filed by a proper person and the claim of the Gaon Sabha was being pressed by a private counsel before him, yet the revision petition has been dismissed by the learned Member with the following observation:- "Under law, the engagement by the Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee of a private counsel must have specific permission of the Collector, such permission has not been filed in this case. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed." 10. IN the circumstances noted above I think it proper that the learned Member should have asked the private counsel to produce necessary authority for prosecuting the revision on behalf of the Gaon Sabha or he should have intimated the District Government Counsel, Agra for taking necessary steps to press the objection against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner. Added to the above the counsel for Gaon Sabha has filed the present writ petition in this Court and has pressed the claim of Gaon Sabha, hence I am under the impression that the learned Member has acted illegally and has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in not deciding the revision petition on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the applicant in revision to remove the defects, if any. 11. SINCE I am sending the case back to the revisional court, it is not necessary to express any opinion regarding the claim of the contesting opposite party based on bonafide title to the disputed land. 12. IN the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 20-1-1978 is hereby quashed and the case is sent back to the revisional court for deciding the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made above. There would be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.