Judgment B.S. Verma, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29-1-2000, passed by respondent No.1 Additional Collector (Nazul)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Udham Singh Nagar, in Revision No. 51/281 of 1996-97. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are that in the year 1970 the Village Kachnal Gusain, Tehsil Kashipur District Nainital, was notified under section 4(1)(a) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, under consolidation proceedings. In the basic year the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Gaon sabha Village Kachnal Gusain. The respondent No.2 L.R. Sugar Factory filed two separate objections before the Consolidation Officer U/S 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act (hereinafter referred as the Act), for declaration of Sirdari rights over the land in dispute. Some other persons, Chhotey Lal, Mahesh Chandra, Subhash Chandra, Sukh Dev also filed objections to declare their rights over some of the land in dispute. The petitioner, Gram Sabha Kachnal Gusain, also contested all the said objections filed before the Consolidation Officer and alleged that the respondent No.2 and other objectors have no right and title over the land in dispute nor they are in possession over the land in dispute. It was further stated that neither they were found in possession on the date of vesting of abolition of the zamindari in the State. The Consolidation Officer had consolidated all the said objections and heard together and has partly allowed the objection of respondent No.2 and partly rejected. The objection of Chhotey Lal was also partly allowed and partly rejected and the objections of Mahesh Chand and Sukhdev were rejected vide order dated 17-4-1971. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Consolidation Officer the petitioner Gaon Sabha filed an appeal No. 861, before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Nainital and the respondent No.2 also filed appeal no. 831 and one Billu had also filed appeal No. 866. The other persons Mahesh Chand, subhash Chand, Sukhdev and Chhotey who had filed objections before the Consolidation Officer did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 17-4-1971. 831 and one Billu had also filed appeal No. 866. The other persons Mahesh Chand, subhash Chand, Sukhdev and Chhotey who had filed objections before the Consolidation Officer did not prefer any appeal against the order dated 17-4-1971. The Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Allahabad, Camp at Kashipur heard all the said appeals together and vide order dated 18-6-1971 dismissed the appeal No. 831 of respondent No.2 and also dismissed the appeal No. 861 filed by petitioner and partly allowed the appeal filed by Billu modifying the order dated 17-4-1971. Aggrieved further the respondent No.2 filed revision No. 183 of 1971 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital. The revision was heard by Assistant Director of Consolidation Luckow Camp at Kashipur and vide judgment and order dated 11-5-1973, dismissed the revision. Thereafter the respondent No.2 filed W.P. No. 5398 of 1973. The said petition was allowed by Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 17-11-1978 and remanded the matter to Assistant Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter the revision was heard by Additional Collector (Nazul)/Deputy Director of Consolidation U.S. Nagar and vide judgment and order dated 19-1-2000 the revision filed by respondent No.2 was allowed vide order dated 19-1-2000. 3. Now feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court and it was alleged that the respondent No.2 L.H. Sugar Factor and Oil Mills Private Ltd. has not filed any documentary evidence to prove that it was in possession of the land in dispute on the 1st day of May, 1950 and as such in absence of such evidence the respondent No.2 cannot claim any right over the land in dispute. It was further alleged that the respondent No.2 cannot claim any right over the land in dispute on the basis of Thekanama dated 4-11-1939 as the Tehkanama was not granted by the then Zamindar exclusive for purpose of personal cultivation to respondent No.2 and as such the impugned order passed by revisional court is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made in the writ petition. It was alleged in the counter affidavit that the respondent No.2 has successfully discharged its burden through documentary as well as oral evidence to prove its continuous possession over the land in dispute since 1939. 4. The respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and denied the averments made in the writ petition. It was alleged in the counter affidavit that the respondent No.2 has successfully discharged its burden through documentary as well as oral evidence to prove its continuous possession over the land in dispute since 1939. The judgment passed by respondent No.1 is absolutely legal and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and has contended that the writ petition has been filed by Gaon Sabha Kachnal Gusain through its Secretary. However, Gaon Sabha is not headed by any Secretary. Gaon Sabha is a body corporate and the Land Management Committee is an executive body of Gaon Sabha charged with the functions to supervise and protect the property vested in the Gaon Sabha. There is no resolution passed by Land Management Committee to authorize any person to file the present writ petition, and the proceedings initiated before the lower authorities, hence the present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied on the following cases:- 1. Pyare Lal and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah and others, reported in [2005 (98) RD 106]. 2. Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1982 ALL. L. J. 76. 7. I have gone through the above cited cases. 8. In first cited case of Pyare Lal and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri Camp at Etah and others, reported in [2005 (98) RD 106], the petition was filed by Up-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha and it has been held that in absence of resolution of L.M.C. in favour of Up-Pradhan, the petition filed by private lawyer, is not maintainable. It has further been observed in the above cited case that the writ petition has been filed in violation of paragraph Nos. 128 and 131 of U.P. Gaon Sabha Manual. Paragraph 128 reads as under:- ‘128. It has further been observed in the above cited case that the writ petition has been filed in violation of paragraph Nos. 128 and 131 of U.P. Gaon Sabha Manual. Paragraph 128 reads as under:- ‘128. The conduct of Gaon Sabha Litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti (Land Management Committed), but shall be a matter of a resolution of the L.M.C. as a whole. In urgent case, however, the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the L.M.C. afterwards by including in the agenda of the next ensuing meetings.’ 9. Paragraph No.131 of Gaon Sabha Manual places a restriction on the L.M.C. from engaging any lawyer other than the panel lawyer appointed for the purpose with an exception that in important cases special lawyer can be engaged with the permission of the Collector in writing. In the case (supra) before the Allahabad High Court was not filed by a panel lawyer to represent Gaon Sabha but through a private counsel and there was nothing on record to indicate that any permission was granted by the Collector to engage a private counsel to file the writ petition on behalf of Gaon Sabha as such it was held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The above view was fortified by a decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Baburam Verma v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Akbarpur District Faizabad, 1996 (Supl.)RD 10. 10. In the second cited case of Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 1982 ALL. L.J. 76, it has been held that on the objection U/S 9A filed by person without authority of Gaon Sabha, orders passed thereon are wholly without jurisdiction. A person cannot initiate legal proceedings on behalf of or for the benefit of another without any authority from that order. Para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual provides the procedure and the manner in which suits or proceedings can be filed and conducted on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the same has got to be done in that particular manner. Para 128 of the Gaon Sabha Manual provides the procedure and the manner in which suits or proceedings can be filed and conducted on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the same has got to be done in that particular manner. In para-21 it has been observed as under:- ‘The Gaon Sabha is a body corporate and the Land Management Committee is an executive body of the Gaon Sabha charged with the functions to supervise and protect the property vested in the Gaon Sabha and it has to function in the manner sanctioned under law. The provisions contained para 128 of gaon sabha Manual and rule 110-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, prescribe the manner in which the litigation is to be conducted by any on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. These provisions, which are mandatory, would govern the litigation to be conducted on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in all proceedings under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.’ 11. In para-22 it has further been observed as under:- ‘Thus, in view of the above I am of the opinion that the objection filed by opposite party No.3 Sheo Prasad cannot be treated to be a valid objection on behalf of the Gaon Sabha under section 9A(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, on the ground that he was himself an interested person under Section 9A(2) of the Act, as admittedly the L.M.C. of the Gaon Sabha had not passed any resolution taking decision to file objection, appeal and revision nor opposite party No.3 was authorized to file those on behalf of Gaon Sabha. It is also not disputed that the action of opposite No.3, in filing objections appeal and revision on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, was not ratified by the L.M.C. in its meetings. Thus, the objections, appeal and revision filed by opposite party No.3 Sheo Prasad on behalf of Gaon Sabha were wholly incompetent and opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders.’ 12. It is pertinent to mention here that land in dispute in the case at hand is of revenue village Kachnal Gusain and not of village Sankerpuri and writ petition has been filed by the Lekhpal Husuf Ali against the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is pertinent to mention here that land in dispute in the case at hand is of revenue village Kachnal Gusain and not of village Sankerpuri and writ petition has been filed by the Lekhpal Husuf Ali against the judgment passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He was not authorized to file the writ petition in this regard, rather he has been authorized to file Public Interest Litigation regarding the land of village Sankerpuri. Therefore, the writ petition has been filed on the behest of incompetent person. Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to show that a resolution was passed in a meeting of Gaon Sabha on 2-4-2000 to the effect that land of village Sankerpuri is being misappropriated by the some persons therefore Usuf Ali Lekhpal/Secretary was authorized to file P.I.L. before the High Court. 13. Further more, the Gaon Sabha had filed objections U/S 9-A, appeal against the order passed by Consolidation Officer and also filed the writ petition against the order passed by Additional Collector(Nazul)/Dy.Director of Consolidation in revision filed by respondent No.2, but nowhere it has been shown that any resolution has been passed by Land Management Committee to file the objection U/S 9A or appeal or the writ petition. Only, the objection, appeal and writ petition have been filed under the caption ‘Gram Sabha Kachnal Gusain’. In the writ petition, initially the petitioner’s description has been typed ‘Gram Sabha Kachnal Gusain, Village Kachnal Gusain, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar’ but lateron it has been written through its Secretary and name of Secretary has not been mentioned. Thus mandatory provisions contained in Para 128 of Gaon Sabha Manual and Rule 110A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules have not been followed. Further, provision of paragraph No. 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual has also not been followed which places a restriction of the L.M.C. from engaging any lawyer appointed for the purpose with an exception that in important cases special lawyer can be engaged with the permission of the Collector in writing. In the case at hand it has not been clarified whether panel lawyer appointed for the purpose has been engaged or any special lawyer has been engaged with the permission of the Collector in writing. 14. In the case at hand it has not been clarified whether panel lawyer appointed for the purpose has been engaged or any special lawyer has been engaged with the permission of the Collector in writing. 14. Thus in view of above shortcomings, I find force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and in view of law laid down in the cases cited above on behalf of respondent no.2, this writ petition is not maintainable, as mandatory provisions of para 128 and 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual and Rule 110-A of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules have not been followed. 15. The writ petition is dismissed, being not maintainable.