JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated Dec. 4, 1980 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division allowing Appeal no. 298 of 1978-79. 2. The facts in brief are that Gaon Sabha filed a suit under Section 229/209 of U.P. Act, 1 of 1951 against Mahmood Ali in respect of plot No. 93 on the allegations that during consolidation operations plot No. 93 had been reserved for public use and against this land, the land of equal value had been allotted to the respective land holders, that no case was fought out between the parties during consolidation operations and that in connivance with the consolidation officials plot No. 93/2, area 10 Biswa was recorded as Sirdari of the defendant. The trial court dismissed the suit of Gaon Sabha. The learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated December 4, 1980 allowed the appeal holding that plot No. 93/2 was not in existence and respondent got no right in respect of that plot. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case No. 1259 of the consolidation court, vide order dated February 13, 1966, the appellant was recorded as Sirdar whereas the learned Additional Commissioner looked into the record of the consolidation court relating to Case No. 1359 decided on February 16, 1966, and that entries in the village records were genuine and made in accordance with the rules and were rightly believed by the trial court. He also argued that appellant was recorded as Sirdari in C.H. Forms 23, 25 and 45. He further argued that no resolution of Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee was filed for filing the suit or for filing the appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Commissioner. the learned D.G.C.(R.) representing the respondents submits that the land was of public utility and appellant had no right or concern with this land, and as such no resolution was required for filing the appeal. 5. Section 128 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter. VII of the Act which pertains to Gaon Sabha. 5. Section 128 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter. VII of the Act which pertains to Gaon Sabha. Sub-section (2)(k) of Section 128 provides that without prejudice to the generality of foregoing power, such rules may provide for conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Land Management Committee. The procedure for litigation by Gaon Sabha has been provided in Chapter VI of Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual which has been framed under the aforesaid provisions of Section 128(2)(k) of U.P. Act 1 of 1951. Para 128 contained in Chapter VI of Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual as follows:- "128. The conduct of Gaon Sabha litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee), but shall be a matter of a resolution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) as a whole. In urgent cased, however, the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) after wards, by including in the agenda of the next ensuring meeting." 6. From the above provision it is apparent that a resolution prior to the filing of a meeting of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti for ratifying the action taken by the Chairman, Land Management Committee is a legal necessity for filing a suit of for filing an appeal by Gaon Sabha. From the papers available on file, I do not find any resolution of Gaon Sabha for filing the suit. In view of this orders passed by both the courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the orders of both the courts below are set aside as neither the suit not the first appeal has been legally presented before the respective courts.