JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amresh Singh, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.3, Gaon Sabha as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The writ petition arises out of proceedings, under Section 229/429 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and seeks quashing of the order dated 30.07.2014 dismissing the application of the petitioner, under Order 7, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure as also the revisional order dated 29.12.2015, whereby the order of the Trial Court has been affirmed. 3. The petitioner is a defendant in a suit filed, under Section 229/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This suit was filed on behalf of the State of U.P. through Collector, Pilibhit and the Gaon Sabha through, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee of village Deprmoua, Pargana Jahanabad, Tehsil and District Pilibhit seeking a declaration that plot no.258/5 area 0.097 hectare is the property of the plaintiffs and that the defendant is not its bhumidhar. 4. The plaint allegations were that during the consolidation, Plot Nos. 279 and 258-M , area 3.34 acres were recorded under Class 6(1) of the Khatauni being land covered by the water. It was land governed by Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, wherein the defendant could not be a Bhumidhar. 5. It appears that the suit was filed on the directions issued by the Apex Court. 6. The objection of the petitioner was that the suit had been filed by the Land Management Committee without any resolution for this purpose having been passed by the Committee. The plaint should have been signed by the Pradhan and only the Gaon Sabha could have filed the suit. It had wrongly been filed also by the Collector. It was also alleged that the suit was barred by Section 331(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and since the land had been allotted to the petitioner, the same could be cancelled only in proceedings, under Section 198(4) of the Act. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land having vested in the Gaon Sabha, under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it was the Gaon Sabha alone which could have filed the suit. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land having vested in the Gaon Sabha, under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it was the Gaon Sabha alone which could have filed the suit. The Collector through, the State of U.P. cannot maintain a suit regarding the land vested in the Gaon Sabha, under Section 117 of the Act. It has also been vehemently urged that the plaint itself was defective since the Pradhan had not signed the same. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 9. Perusal of the plaint reveals that it had been filed by the State of U.P. and the Land Management Committee through its Chairman. It is no doubt true that the Chairman of the Land Management Committee is the Pradhan. 10. Perusal of the certified copy of the plaint reveals that it has been signed by the Secretary of the Land Management Committee, namely, the Lekhpal. 11. In my considered opinion, the error is at best a typographical error, made in describing the party. The Lekhpal of the village concerned, being the Ex Officio Secretary of the Land Management Committee, is competent to sign the plaint, in view of the law laid down in Jagdish Pandey v. Addl. Collector (City) and others, being Writ petition No.17743 of 1997 decided on 03.08.2011. This judgment has been cited by the petitioner himself, but is against him. 12. On the issue at the State of U.P. through Collector, Pilibhit was not competent to maintain the suit, the Courts below have rightly held that the Gaon Sabha is only custodian of the property belonging to the State. It is not the owner of the land but has been constituted to manage the property and therefore, the State was competent to file a suit. 13. It has also been observed that in case, the Land Management Committee and the Gaon Sabha fail to discharge their duties, the Collector shall take action in this regard. Therefore, also it cannot be held that the State of U.P. is not competent to file a suit. 14. 13. It has also been observed that in case, the Land Management Committee and the Gaon Sabha fail to discharge their duties, the Collector shall take action in this regard. Therefore, also it cannot be held that the State of U.P. is not competent to file a suit. 14. Since the State itself is a party and the plaint have been signed by the Collector, who is competent to authorise even a private individual to litigate on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, the allegation that there is no resolution of the Land Management Committee for filing the suit, even if, factually correct, does not render the suit, not maintainable. 15. The third contention, that the allotment in favour of the petitioner could be cancelled only in proceedings under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, is a question yet to be considered by the Courts below. 16. Besides, it is settled law that the Courts while deciding a suit have jurisdiction and power to mould the relief and therefore, also it cannot be said that the suit was not maintainable and was barred by some specific provisions of law or by implication. This argument may be considered, when the suit is decided by the Trial Court, if the petitioner is able to establish that a valid allotment was made in his favour. This question will have to be considered once any issue in this regard is framed and evidence thereon is adduced. It is not a question on which, the suit can be thrown out at the very initial stage. 17. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground for interference. 18. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.