JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This revision has been filed by a member of the LMC on behalf of the Gaon Sabha arising out of order dated 25-11-1974 by the learned Tehsildar dropping the proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules and withdrawing notice in form 49-Ma. The revision before the learned first appellate court was rejected on 26-8-1975 on the ground that Rampal through a private counsel had filed the revision but there was no permission of the Collector for engagement of a private counsel by the Gaon Sabha and secondly, this was no revision by the Gaon Sabha but a member without the authority of the LMC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability as the same position prevails in this revision before the Board. I have also perused the record. 3. No doubt, there is no permission so far, to engage a private counsel. The permission of the Collector dated 27-6-1973 is only in favour of Ram Lal to do pairviat his own court. This permission cannot override the provisions of law without a resolution of the LMC in support, Rampal remains only a private person. As member, he has no authority to start or carry on any litigation on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. No resolution of the LMC under Rule 110-AAA of the UPZA & LR Rules was passed authorising him to conduct any case for the Gaon Sabha. If the interest of the Gaon Sabha suffered, the State could also take up the interest and file revision but not a private person. Even para 128 of the Gaon Sabha & Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual provides that the conduct of the Gaon Sabha litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the chairman of the LMC but shall be a matter of resolution of the LMC as a whole. 4. Obviously, when even chairman by himself cannot file a revision in the absence of the LMC resolution, a mere member of the LMC is not at all competent to do so. Even the Collector cannot bestow upon a member of the LMC such authority which can be given by the LMC resolution under Rule 110-AAA of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules under the specified circumstances. 5. Even the engagement of private counsel is without any permission of the Collector. Even the Collector cannot bestow upon a member of the LMC such authority which can be given by the LMC resolution under Rule 110-AAA of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules under the specified circumstances. 5. Even the engagement of private counsel is without any permission of the Collector. Such permission requires different consideration and consequent order, than required in giving a general permission to do pairvi while the Gaon Sabha panel lawyer appears. 6. Therefore, this revision petition is found to be not maintainable and is hereby dismissed with costs.