JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a revision against the judgment dated 29-1-1981 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he rejected the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated 25-4-80 by which the trial court rejected the application. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and D.G.C. (R) and have also seeD the relevant documents available on the file. 3. The facts of the case are that proceedings under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951, was pending. During the pendency of the suit a private counsel was engaged by the Gaon Sabha and an objection was filed alleging that the private counsel cannot appear on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and take part in the proceedings without the permission of the authority concerned. This application was rejected by the trial court's order dated 25-4-80. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner relied on the ruling Land Management Committee Naini Patti district Mathura v. The Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others, 1965 RD page 349. Hon'ble High Court has held at page 351 col. 2 that no counsel has been appointed to conduct the cases on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in this court. The standing counsel cannot be presumed to be the counsel for the Gaon Samaj. Private counsel can be engaged by the Chairman. 5. Thus from this ruling, it is clear that in the absence of appointment of any penal lawyer or counsel for the Gaon Samaj in the court concerned the private counsel can be engaged by the authority concerned but where counsel for the Gaon Samaj and Land Management Committee have already been appointed no other private counsel can be engaged in that case (vide Gaon Shabha v. Bhondi, 1985 AWC 191 in para 7). The relevant para 131 of the Gaon Samaj and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual runs as follows : - "131. Lawyers have been appointed who shall represent Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) and give it legal advice where necessary. L. M. C. shall not engage any lawyer other than a penal lawyer appointed. In important cases, however, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific permission of the Collector in writing." Hence it is clear that the private counsel cannot be engaged by the Gaon Sabha or Land Management Committee without the permission of the Collector. L. M. C. shall not engage any lawyer other than a penal lawyer appointed. In important cases, however, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific permission of the Collector in writing." Hence it is clear that the private counsel cannot be engaged by the Gaon Sabha or Land Management Committee without the permission of the Collector. Here the penal lawyers are appointed hence there is no question of engaging any other private counsel for the Gaon Sabha or the L. M. C. It is therefore, held that the Gaon Sabha or L.M.C. has no power to engage private counsel where penal lawyer has been appointed for the State Government for conducting the Gaon Sabha and State cases. 6. Hence the orders dated 25-4-1980 and 29-1-1981 are illegal apparent on the face of it and the courts have wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them. 7. I, therefore, allow the revision and set aside the orders dated 25-4-1980 and 29-1-1981 of the court below.