JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - Pradhan Gaon Sabha Geriapur, Pergana Bari district Jaunpur filed this second appeal No. 57 of 1985-86, Jaunpur against the judgment and decree dated December 11, 1985 passed by Sri B.S. Verma, Additional Commissioner (I), Varanasi, Division, Varanasi, on the ground amongst others that the lower appellate court passed the order without any notice to the defendant appellant and the orders were obtained by playing fraud upon the court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Basdeo has brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for declaration of his title as Bhumidhar on the basis of possession for the last 12 years and on the ground that he was recorded as Sirdar during the consolidation operations. The suit was contested by the Gaon Sabha which asserted that Basdeo was not recorded as Sirdar during the consolidation operations. The case of the Gaon Sabha is that the land in dispute vested in the Gaon Sabha during the consolidation operation in the course of which the Gaon Sabha was declared as real owner of the land in dispute. It was also contended that the suit, was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Sri B.P. Srivastava, Assistant Collector 1st class Jaunpur dismissed the suit on January 21, 1985. Against his judgment, Basdeo went in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who accepted the appeal and set aside the orders of the learned trial court on December 11, 1985. Aggrieved by his order, the Gaon Sabha preferred a second appeal on the ground mentioned above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents on record. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this appeal cannot succeed because the mandatory provisions contained in para 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual were not complied with. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that no special counsel can conduct the case without specific order of the Collector. He relied on 1981 R.D. 248 and 1984 R.D. 193. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ganga Prasad relying on 1981 R.D. 216 and 1965 R.D. 349 contended that para 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual is not mandatory but directory. He relied on 1981 R.D. 248 and 1984 R.D. 193. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Ganga Prasad relying on 1981 R.D. 216 and 1965 R.D. 349 contended that para 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual is not mandatory but directory. He has also asserted that para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual was fully complied with. He supported his plea by citing 1986 R.D. 26. 4. The only question in this case for determination is whether a private counsel can conduct the case on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. This is the preliminary issue which has been raised in the present revision. It has been held in L.M.C. v. Board of Revenue 1965 R.D. 349, that para 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual is directory having no force of statutory law. In Gaon Sabha v. Achhaibar 1981 R.D. 216, it has been held that a private counsel is competent to file appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. It has been held in Gaon Sabha v. Board of Revenue 1984 R.D. 291, that opportunity for curing the defect should have been given to the Gaon Sabha. The Hon'ble P.P. Singh, J. has held in Gaon Sabha v. D.D.C. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44 of 1978 that the case cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of paras 128 to 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual. While delivering the judgment, the Hon'ble Judge has also referred to 1965 R.D. 349 and 1981 R.D. 216. The learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to Gaon Sabha v. Jagannath Singh 1984 R.D. 193, It has been held by the Hon'ble N.N. Sharma, J. that the appeal presented by a private counsel op behalf of the Gaon Sabha is incompetent, in view of referring the ruling given in Gaon Sabha v. Rant Karan Singh 1986 R.D. 26, the Hon'ble K.P. Singh, J. has quoted the observations made by the learned Single Judge at page 7 column 1 para 1 that the discussion made above would show that neither was a resolution of the Gaon Sabha required for filing an appeal nor was a written authority to do so. From the language implied in para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual it appears to be that if would not otherwise apply to an appeal which is filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in this Court. From the language implied in para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual it appears to be that if would not otherwise apply to an appeal which is filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in this Court. The Hon'ble Judge was of the view, to my mind, the above observation applies with greater force in the case of Writ Petition before this court'. 5. In view of the above rulings, the contentions made by the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha are accepted. Thus, the preliminary objection raised in this case is decided accordingly. Fixed January 20, 1988 for final hearing on merits. Issue notice to the parties.