Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2212 (ALL)

Ram Babu v. State of U. P.

2023-09-26

MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

body2023
JUDGMENT : Manish Kumar Nigam, J. This writ petition has been filed for following prayer : (A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 3 to demarcate the Gata No. 402 from the Gata No. 350 as well as assure that the nature of the pasture land may not be changed which is located at village-Chandravat @ Pure Matadin, Pargana-Sikandra, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District Prayagraj. (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 3 to assure that status quo relating to the Gata No. 402 (Pasture land) may be maintained unless and until the demarcation of the aforesaid Gata No. 402, located at village-Chandravat @ Pure Matadin, Pargana-Sikandra, Tehsil-Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, is made by the team of the Lekhpals of other circule. (C) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (D) Issue the award cost of the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that this petition has been filed by Ram Babu i.e. petitioner claiming himself to be authorised by Gram Panchayat for filing this writ petition. It has been stated in the writ petition that Gata No. 402 located at Village Chandravat @ Pure Matadin, Pargana Sikandra, Tehsil Phoopur, District Prayagraj is the pasture land over which respondent No. 4 started illegal construction and complaint regarding this was made by the petitioner to respondent authorities but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised as regards to maintainability of writ petition by the learned Standing Counsel on following grounds : 1. This writ petition has been filed by one Rambabu son of Kedar Nath but there is no averment in the present writ petition that Rambabu, petitioner is the pradhan of the village and petition has not been filed on behalf of Gaon Sabha or Land Management Committee. 2. The instant petition has been filed without resolution of the Land Management Committee to file this petition and without obtaining approval to any such resolution from the Sub Divisional Officer/Collector which is a statutory requirement in terms of the various provisions contained in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, U.P. Gram Sabha Manual, U.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the rules framed thereunder. 3. 3. In absence of requisite resolution duly approved by the S.D.M./Collector for engaging a private counsel, the petition can be filed only by the counsel appointed by the State Government to represent the Land Management Committee before this Court and not by any other private counsel. 4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the pradhan of the village Chandrawat (Khargu Ka Pura), Post Tejpur, Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj and has relied upon the authorization dated 20.7.2023 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The authorization relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is quoted as under : 5. Before examining the rival contention of the parties, it will be appropriate to look into the statutory provisions made in this regard. 6. U.P. Revenue Code,, 2006 as amended by U.P. Act, 2016 repealed as many as 39 enactments, including U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and century old U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. The, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is uniformally applicable to whole of Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section (22) of Section 4 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides word and expressions ''Gram fund'' ''Gram Sabha'' and ''Gram Panchayat'' shall have the meaning assigned to them in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of U.P. Revenue Code provides ''Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti'' means a Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti constituted under Section 28-A of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. 7. Section 28-A of the U.P. Panchayat Act, 1947 provides Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti. Section 28-A of the U.P. Panchayat Act, 1947 is quoted as under : ''28-A. Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti-The [Gram Panchayat] shall also be Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and as such discharge the duties of up-keep, protection and supervision of all property belonging to or vested in or held by the Gram Panchayat under Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) or under any other provisions of that Act. (2) The Pradhan shall be the Chairperson of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, and the Lekhpal of the area comprised in the jurisdiction of the [Gram Panchayat] shall be its Secretary''. 8. Section 28-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provides for the function of Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti. (2) The Pradhan shall be the Chairperson of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, and the Lekhpal of the area comprised in the jurisdiction of the [Gram Panchayat] shall be its Secretary''. 8. Section 28-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 provides for the function of Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti. Section 28-B of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is quoted as under : ''28-B. Functions of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti-(1) The Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall, for and on behalf of the Gram Panchayat be charged with the general management, preservation and control of all property referred to in Section 28-A including - (a) the settling and management of land but not including the transfer of any property for the time being vested in the 5 [Gram Panchayat] under Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) or under any other provision of that Act; (b) the preservation, maintenance and development of forests and trees; (c) the maintenance and development of abadi sites and village communication; (d) the management of hats, bazaars and meals; (e) the maintenance and development of fisheries and tanks; (f) the rendering of assistance in the consolidation of holdings; (g) the conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Gram Panchayat relating to or arising out of the functions of Samiti; (h) the performance of functions specifically assigned to the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or any other enactment; and (i) any other matter relating to such management, preservation and control as may be prescribed; and may exercise all powers of the [Gram Panchayat] necessary for or incidental to the discharge of such duties. (2) The Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall function subject to the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 9. Section 28-B of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 describes various statutory function of the Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti for and on behalf of Gram Panchayat which includes the General Managment and control of all property belonging to or vested in or held by Gram Panchayat. The function of Land Management Committee also includes conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Gram Panchayat. 10. Section 60 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also provides for superintendence, management and control of Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti. The function of Land Management Committee also includes conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Gram Panchayat. 10. Section 60 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also provides for superintendence, management and control of Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti. Section 60 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under : ''60. Superintendence, management and control by Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Code, every Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall be charged, for and on behalf of the Gram Panchayat, with the superintendence, preservation, management and control of all land and other things entrusted or deemed to be entrusted to that Gram Panchayat under Section 59 or over which such Gram Panchayat is entitled to take possession under this Code or any other law for the time being in force. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the functions and duties of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall include : (a) the settlement and management of land; (b) the preservation, maintenance and development of forests and trees; (c) the maintenance and development of abadi sites and village communications; (d) the management of hats, bazaars and melas; (e) the maintenance and development of fisheries and tanks; (f) the development of cottage industries; (g) the development and improvement of agriculture; (h) the conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Gram Panchayat; and (i) such other matters as may be prescribed'' 11. Thus, in view of above quoted provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, it is a duty of Land Management Committee to manage and preserve and supervise all property belonging to Gram Panchayat. It is also one of the statutory duties cast upon the Land Management Committee to conduct and prosecute suits and other legal proceedings by or against the Gram Panchayat. Though, the Land Management Committee is bound by the statutory duty to conduct and prosecute legal proceedings by or on behalf of Gram Panchayat, however, the function of Bhumi Prabhandhan Samiti are regulated by the provisions of U.P. Gaon Sabha Manual, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rules framed under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 known as U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. 12. Section 62 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for contesting of suits and legal proceedings which is as under : ''62. 12. Section 62 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for contesting of suits and legal proceedings which is as under : ''62. Conduct of suits and legal proceedings.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and such other conditions as may be prescribed, the Chairman or such members of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti as may be authorised in this behalf by such Samiti, may sign any document and do all other things for the proper conduct and prosecution of suits and other proceedings for and on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. (2) No suit or other proceedings to which any Gram Panchayat is a party shall be compromised or withdrawn on behalf of such Gram Panchayat, unless such compromise or withdrawal is approved by a resolution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and prior sanction of the Sub-Divisional Officer is obtained.'' 13. Sub-section (1) of Section 62 provides that subject to the provisions of Section 62 and such other conditions and as may be prescribed, chairman or member of Bhumi Prabhandhan Samiti as may be authorise and such Samiti do all other things for proper conduct and prosecution of the suits and other proceedings for and on behalf of Gram Panchayat. 14. It is pertinent to mention that such other conditions as may be prescribed as mentioned in Sub Clause (1) of the Section 62 are not being provided in the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 but Sub rule (1) of Rule 74 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides that other duties of Penal Lawyers and the control of Collector Commissioner, the Secretary Board of Revenue or the Government, as the case may be, over there and conduct of suits and legal proceedings shall be governed by the instructions regarding conduct of Gram Panchayat Litigation contained in Appendix-II to these rules or the instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. Appendix-II to the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 which contains the instructions for the conduct of Gram Panchayat litigation provides procedure for litigation to be conducted by Gram Panchayat. Paragraph 1 of the Appendix-2 provides that Gram Panchayat is a corporate body which is vested with the capacity of suing and being sued in its statutory name. Appendix-II to the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 which contains the instructions for the conduct of Gram Panchayat litigation provides procedure for litigation to be conducted by Gram Panchayat. Paragraph 1 of the Appendix-2 provides that Gram Panchayat is a corporate body which is vested with the capacity of suing and being sued in its statutory name. On its behalf the Land Management Committee and its chairman are responsible for conduct of all litigation affecting generally the Gram Panchayat, subject to the control, generally of the Government and locally Collector or S.D.M. 15. Paragraph No. 2 of the aforesaid appendix provides that the conduct of Gram Panchayat litigation shall not depend upon individual discretion of the chairman of the Land Management Committee, but shall be matter of resolution of Land Management Committee as a whole. In urgent case, however, the chairman can take action on his own and seek rectification of the Land Management Committee afterwards by including it in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting. 16. Apart from the other, paragraph No. 12 of the Appendix-II to the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 also provides, the chairman of the Land Management Committee shall not be entitled to take any action in any suit or proceedings unless he consults the panel lawyer and obtains permission by the S.D.M. or the Collector. Sub para 2 of the paragraph No. 12 of the appendix-2 provides that before instituting a suit or proceeding, the chairman of the Land Management Committee should report full facts to the Tehsildar alongwith resolution of the Land Management Committee for filing the suit or proceedings. The Tehsildar shall after making such enquiry as may be necessary and after consulting the panel counsel submit his report to the S.D.M. alongwith written opinion of the Tehsil panel lawyer. If the suit or proceeding is to be instituted in the Court of Tehsil Headquarters, the S.D.M. shall take a decision. If the suit, instituted in a Court at the District Headquarters, the S.D.M. shal submit all the papers to the Collector for orders. The Collector shall then decide whether a suit or proceeding is to be instituted or not. He may, in this connection, consult the Headquarter panel lawyer or the District Government Counsel, if he considered necessary. 17. If the suit, instituted in a Court at the District Headquarters, the S.D.M. shal submit all the papers to the Collector for orders. The Collector shall then decide whether a suit or proceeding is to be instituted or not. He may, in this connection, consult the Headquarter panel lawyer or the District Government Counsel, if he considered necessary. 17. It will be useful to look into the provisions as made in the U.P. Gaon Sabha Manual which are held to be mandatory by various pronouncements made by this Court. Paragraph Nos. 101, 105, 110 and 111 of the Gaon Sabha Manual are extracted hereinbelow : ''101. Gram Sabha's litigation.-The conduct of Gram Sabha's litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti but shall be a matter of resolution of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti as a whole. In urgent cases, however, the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti afterwards by including in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting.[Vide G.O. No. 2240-AZ/ZA-1165-1954, dated 20th August, 1958]. 105. Power to engage Panel lawyer.-(1) Only the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer are authorised to grant sanction to engage Panel Lawyers. In every case, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall obtain their sanction for engagement of such lawyers and shall not engage them directly. (2) The Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti cannot, except by the specific permission of the Collector, engage any lawyers other than Panel Lawyer. (3) Generally, Collector shall only in those cases, which can be of special intricacy or in which it can be apprehended that panel lawyer will collude with opposite party, grant permission to engage a lawyer other than the Panel Lawyer.[Vide sub-para (3) of Para 1 of G.O. No. C-5777/VII-B-F-1239-53, dated 30th March, 1954]. (4) Fresh sanction of the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer is essential to engage a counsel in an appeal against Gram Sabha (either alone or alongwith the State as a party), if the lawyer is the same, who had been allowed to appear in original suit, from which said appeal has been arisen.[Vide G.O. No. 2550 (M),/ID-2020-50, dated 1st December, 1962]. 110. To conduct appeal and revisions etc. 110. To conduct appeal and revisions etc. by the Panel lawyer.-Under the provisions of sub-para (4) of Para 117 the appeals or revisions in the case of Gram Sabha before the Collector, the Civil Judge or the District Judge at the headquarter of a district or before the Additional Commissioner or the Commissioner at the headquarter of a division are conducted by the panel lawyers (civil and revenue) of the district, where these Courts set in consultation with the District Government Counsel. All the revenue cases before the Board of Revenue and all the civil cases arising out of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and writs before the High Court, in which State of U. P. and Gram Sabha both are parties or Gram Sabha alone is a party, are to be conducted by the lawyers of Gram Sabha so appointed by the State Government in this regard. In districts, where no panel lawyer (civil) exists, District Government Council will conduct the civil appeals or revisions. All revenue cases before the Board of Revenue, in which State of Uttar Pradesh and Gram Sabha both are parties and Gram Sabha alone is party, has to be conducted by the lawyers of Gram Sabha. All the civil cases arising out of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and writs before the High Court, in which State of U. P. and Gram Sabha both are parties or Gram Sabha alone is party has to be conducted by the lawyers of the Gram Sabha so appointed by the State Government in this regard and in such cases, the Collector will have to obtain sanction of the Government in the Revenue Department. Generally, District Panel Lawyer will get fees as admissible, if Collector in particular cases does not certify that case is of intricate nature or for any other reason, he is entitled to get additional fees. Payment of the bills relating to the above cases and other miscellaneous expenses relating to that district shall be made from the Consolidate Gram Fund. [Vide G.O. No. C-831/VII-B-F-III-3-53, dated March, 1953, 2108/VII-F-E-1239/53, dated 24th August, 1959 and G.O. No. A-4477/VII-B-F-1239-53, dated 3rd March, 1960]. 111. Instituting suit with consultation of Panel lawyer.-(1) Gram Sabha will either be plaintiff instituting a suit or a defendant to contest a suit. [Vide G.O. No. C-831/VII-B-F-III-3-53, dated March, 1953, 2108/VII-F-E-1239/53, dated 24th August, 1959 and G.O. No. A-4477/VII-B-F-1239-53, dated 3rd March, 1960]. 111. Instituting suit with consultation of Panel lawyer.-(1) Gram Sabha will either be plaintiff instituting a suit or a defendant to contest a suit. The Chairman of Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti will have no right to institute any suit or proceedings, until he has consulted the panel lawyers and has obtained orders of the Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer. (2) Before instituting a suit, Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall report full facts to the Tahsildar alongwith a copy of the resolution of the Samiti for instituting the suit or proceeding. Tahsildar shall after making such enquiry, as may be necessary and after consulting with Panel Lawyers of Tahsil, submit his report to Sub-Divisional Officer alongwith the opinion of Penal Lawyers of Tahsil. If suit or proceeding has to be instituted before Court of Tahsil headquarter, the Sub-Divisional Officer will decide. If suit or proceeding has to be instituted before Court of District headquarter, Sub-Divisional Officer shall present all papers before Collector for order. The Collector will decide as to whether suit or proceeding be instituted or not. In this connection, he may consult with the District Penal Lawyer or District Government Counsel. (3) …........... 18. Thus, from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions contained in Gaon Sabha Manual, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and appendix-II to U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016, it is clear that Gaon Sabha or the Land Management Committee cannot prosecute or attend litigation on behalf of the Gaon Sabha without there being a resolution of the Land Management Committee in this regard(except in case of urgency and subject to rectification by Land Management Committee in next ensuing meeting) and further Sub Clause (2) of paragraph 111 of U.P. Gaon Sabha Manual requires that before instituting a suit, Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti shall report complete facts to the Tehsildar alongwith the copy of resolution of the Land Management Committee for instituting the suit or proceedings. It further provides that the Tehsildar will thereafter make an enquiry as may be necessary and will consult with the panel lawyer of the Tehsil and may submit his report to the S.D.M. or Collector alongwith opinion of panel lawyer and accordingly, the S.D.M. or the Collector will decide as to whether the suit or proceedings are to be instituted. It further provides that the Tehsildar will thereafter make an enquiry as may be necessary and will consult with the panel lawyer of the Tehsil and may submit his report to the S.D.M. or Collector alongwith opinion of panel lawyer and accordingly, the S.D.M. or the Collector will decide as to whether the suit or proceedings are to be instituted. Similar provision has been made in Sub-para (2) of Paragraph No. 12 of the Appendix-II to the U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016. 19. Section 72 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for appointment of Standing Counsel and other lawyers to represent at High Court, Board of Revenue and other Courts. Section 72 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under : ''72. Standing Counsel and other lawyers.-(1) The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, appoint- (a) one or more Standing Counsel (Revenue) each at Allahabad High Court and Lucknow Bench thereof; (b) one or more Standing Counsel (Revenue) each for Board of Revenue Allahabad and Lucknow; (c) one or more Divisional Government Counsel (Revenue) for the divisional head-quarter; and (d) one District Government Counsel (Revenue) and one or more Additional District Government Counsel (Revenue) for the district head-quarter. (2) The Collector may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed appoint not more than two Panel Lawyers (Revenue) for every tahsil. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 62, the legal practitioners appointed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) may plead or act, without any written authority, on behalf of any Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti in any Court or authority for which he is so appointed. (4) No Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti shall engage any legal practitioner other than one appointed under this section without prior permission of the Collector. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court Fees Act 1870 (Act No. 7 of 1870) no Court fee shall be payable on any vakalatnama or memo of appearance filed by any legal practitioner appointed under this section. (6) The legal practitioners appointed under this section shall not be competent to plead or act against any Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti before any Court for which he is so appointed. (6) The legal practitioners appointed under this section shall not be competent to plead or act against any Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti before any Court for which he is so appointed. (7) The State Government may, by notification in the gazette, issue any direction, for monitoring of cases filed by or against Gram Panchayat, Gram Sabha or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and performance based annual appraisal of Panel Advocates appointed under this Code or the enactments repealed by it, and also for appointing any law officer for the aforesaid purpose''. 20. Section 73 of the Revenue Code, 2006 provides that representation of Gram Panchayat in suits and other proceedings under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Section 73 of the Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under : ''73. Representation of Gram Panchayat.-(1) In any suit or other proceedings under this Code, the Gram Panchayat shall be represented- (a) in proceeding before the Collector or in a Civil Court, by the District Government Counsel (Revenue); (b) in proceeding before the Commissioner, by the Divisional Government Counsel (Revenue), and; (c) in proceeding before the Board or the High Court by the separate Standing Counsel (Revenue) of Lucknow or Allahabad, as the case may be. (2) Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the State Government or the Collector from appointing special counsel for the conduct of any suit or proceeding to which any Gram Panchayat is party on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.'' 21. The Sub Clause 4 of Section 72 prohibits the Gaon Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti to engage any legal practitioner other than one appointed under Section 72 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without prior permission of the Collector. 22. Rule 72 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 provides for appointment of counsels to represent the Gaon Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti. 23. Rule 74 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides for other terms and conditions of the counsel referred in Section 72 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016. Sub Rule (e) of Rule 74 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 provides that no panel lawyer shall institute, contest or conduct in case unless he is authorised to do so by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or Collector or the Board of Revenue or Government as the case may be. 24. Sub Rule (e) of Rule 74 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 provides that no panel lawyer shall institute, contest or conduct in case unless he is authorised to do so by the Sub Divisional Magistrate or Collector or the Board of Revenue or Government as the case may be. 24. Thus, from the perusal of provisions of law quoted above, it is clear that for filing or initiating any suit or proceedings before the Court of law on behalf of Gaon Sabha, the Land Management Committee has to pass a resolution to the effect and has also to obtain the permission from the S.D.M. or Collector as the case may be. Further, the Land Management Committee has to file the suit or proceeding through panel lawyer appointed under Section 72 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and in any case cannot engage a private counsel except with the prior permission in writing by the Collector in this regard. 25. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions contained in U.P. Gaon Sabha Manual and Appendix-II of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, are not mandatory and are only directory. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Land Management Committee Nainu Patti through Pradhan Gaon Samaj Pergana and District Mathura v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1965 ALJ 858, in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph No. 3, 5, 6 & 7 of the aforesaid judgment. Paragraph 3, 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment in Land Management Committee v. Board of Revenue (Supra) are quoted as under : ''3. When this petition was taken up, a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3 to the effect that this writ petition was not properly presented and that Sri G.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, could not be heard. According to the learned Counsel the Pardhan who had signed Vakalatnama appointing Sri. G.N. Verma has not been proved to be the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. As such he was not competent to authorise Sri. G.N. Verma to file the writ petition against the order of the Board. According to the learned Counsel the Pardhan who had signed Vakalatnama appointing Sri. G.N. Verma has not been proved to be the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. As such he was not competent to authorise Sri. G.N. Verma to file the writ petition against the order of the Board. The second submission of the learned Counsel was that in view of paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual it is a panel lawyer appointed by the State who could file the writ petition and could be heard in support of it and not any other counsel. 5. Now coming to the second objection of the learned Counsel, it has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner by Sri G.N. Verma that para-graph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is only a direction issued by the State Government. It has no force of Statutory law. Moreover, this paragraph is only directory and non-compliance of it would not make the petition incompetent. Moreover it was submitted that so far as the High Gourt is concerned no lawyer has been appointed to conduct Gaon Samaj litigation. Sri. S.B L. Gaur, learned Counsel for the Respondents on being asked expressed his inability to inform the Court as to whether any counsel has been appointed for conducting the litigation for and on behalf of the Goan Samaj in this Court. 6. Section 127B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act deals with the panel of lawyers which is as follows: ''127B. Panel lawyers. (1) The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, appoint in each district a panel of lawyers to conduct suits and other proceedings by or against the Gaon Sabhas in respect of their functions under this Act. Panel lawyers. (1) The State Government may, on such terms and conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed, appoint in each district a panel of lawyers to conduct suits and other proceedings by or against the Gaon Sabhas in respect of their functions under this Act. (2) A panel lawyer shall with respect to such Gaon Sabhas in district, as may be prescribed, be their agent for the purpose of receiving processes issued by any Court or any authority against them in respect of their functions under this Act, and shall be deemed to be the recognised agent by whom appearances, acts and applications under this act of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or any other law relating to land tenure may be made or done on behalf of such Gaon Sabhas.'' By virtue of Section 128(2)(k) rules have been framed for the conduct and prosecution of the suits and proceeding by or against the Land Management Committee. In pursuance of this provision the State Government has made Rule 114 in this respect which is as follows: ''114. In For the conduct of suits, applications and other proceedings, by or against the Gaon Samajes, the following shall be appointed to the panel of lawyers in each district for the Courts specified against each: (a) The District Government Counsel (Civil) appointed by the State Government for Civil Courts at district headquarters (b) The District Government Counsel (Revenue) appointed or to be appointed by the State Government for revenue Courts at district headquarters. The District Government Counsel (Civil) and the District Government Counsel (Revenue), appointed in the manner given above, shall be the recognised agent of all Gaon Samajes in the District for civil and revenue work as the case may be. (c) A Mukhtar, a revenue agent or a lawyer to be selected for appointment by the Collector who is hereby empowered to make appointment on behalf of the State Government for revenue Courts at Tahsil headquarters. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in revenue Courts at Tahsil headquarters. (d) The Sub District Government Counsel (Civil) appointed by the State Government for Civil Courts at tahsil headquarters, wherever they exist. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in Civil Courts at tahsil headquarters. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in revenue Courts at Tahsil headquarters. (d) The Sub District Government Counsel (Civil) appointed by the State Government for Civil Courts at tahsil headquarters, wherever they exist. He shall be the recognised agent of the Gaon Samajes only for cases in Civil Courts at tahsil headquarters. (2) The term of the tahsil panel lawyers shall not exceed three years but the appointing authority may remove and such lawyer before the expiry of his term. (3) District Officer shall maintain a confidential personal file of every panel lawyer and shall annually enter therein remarks on the lawyer's capacity, efficiency and integrity. (4) The terms and duties of the panel lawyers and the control of the Collector over them shall be governed by the instructions for the conduct of Gaon Samaj litigation issued in GO No. 2240 AZ/I A-1165 1954, dated August 20, 1958, or such instructions as may be issued by the State Government from time to time. It is apparent from this rule that no counsel has been appointed to conduct cases on behalf of the Gaon Samaj in this Court. In absence of any mention of this Court one could think that standing Counsel may be considered to be such counsel for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Gaon Samaj. But, in my opinion, this assumption cannot be made for the simple reason that the Standing Counsel represents the Board of Revenue and subordinate Courts. As such it is not possible to consider that the Standing Counsel might be deemed to be a counsel for the Land Management Committee. In absence of any such appointment when the Chairman, Land Management Committed is a person authorised under the law to conduct a litigation for or against the Gaon Samaj and when he appoints a counsel for that purpose, it cannot be said that the counsel has no authority to file the petition or to argue the case on his behalf. Moreover in my opinion, paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is only a direction given by the State Government to the Land Management Committee and has not the force of statutory law. Non-compliance of it cannot be considered to be fatal to the presentation of the writ petition or the appointment of Sri. G.N. Verma as counsel for the Land Management Committee. Non-compliance of it cannot be considered to be fatal to the presentation of the writ petition or the appointment of Sri. G.N. Verma as counsel for the Land Management Committee. NO objection had been taken in the counter-affidavit in this respect as well. Consequently no evidence could be brought on the record to show that the Chairman, Land Management Committee had taken special permission for the engagement of Sri. G.N. Verma as provided by paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual itself. 7. Since the Chairman, Land Management Committee is authorised to conduct litigation for or against the Land Management Committee and he appoints a lawyer to conduct a case why should this Court in absence of any statutory prohibition go into this question and refuse to hear the counsel appointed by the Chairman, Land Management Committee. If the Chairman, Land Management Committee has acted in contravention of certain directions of the State, it is for the State or the person aggrieved to take action against the Chairman, Land Management Committee for disobeying the directions issued by the State Government. This Court will not go into this question when there is no legal prohibition in the Act or the Rules made in this respect for engaging a private counsel for the conduct of a litigation on behalf of the Gaon Samaj so for as this Court is concerned. In view of what has been said above, the preliminary objection raised is overruled.'' 26. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State respondent contended that in case of Gram Samaj Kairadih through its Sabhapati Ram Ujagar, Pargana Ungli, Tahsil Shahganj, district Jaunpur v. Dy. Director of Consolidation U.P. Lucknow Camp at Jaunpur and others, 1969 AWR 500, this Court has held that provisions are mandatory. It was further submitted that in case of Gram Samaj (Supra), the Hon'ble Court has also considered the judgment in case of Land Management Committee (supra). Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 of the judgment in case of Gram Samaj (supra) which are quoted as under : ''5. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon paragraph Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18 of the judgment in case of Gram Samaj (supra) which are quoted as under : ''5. Two questions arise for consideration: whether the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, that is, the Sabhapati of the Gaon Samaj, could file the written statement and also prefer an appeal or revision without any resolution of the Land Management Committee; and secondly, if the Gaon Samaj could engage a private lawyer, and not a lawyer appointed to prosecute or defence cases of the Land Management Committee. 6. Section 122 A of the UP ZA and LR Act was deleted under Section 273 of the UP Adhiniyam, 33 of 1961. The present case, however, is governed by the provisions as in force prior to the enforcement of UP Adhiniyam, 33 of 1961. Under sub-section (3) of this section the Chairman or any other office bearer or member of the Land Management Committee shall, subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed, be entitled to sign any document and to do all other things for the conduct and prosecution of suits and other proceedings. The sub-section merely speaks of the signing of the plaint or written statement, but not whether the Chairman can institute a legal proceeding on his own. Neither does the sub-section authorize the Chairman to defend a suit or proceeding on his own. What the sub-section lays down is that once the suit has to be instituted or defended, the Chairman can sign the document and do all other things necessary for its conduct and prosecution. As the suit is instituted or defended by the Land Management Committee, the decision to sue or defend has to be taken by the Land Management Committee, and cannot be taken by the Chairman or any office bearer in his individual capacity. It must be the collective decision of the Land Management Committee, and not of any individual member thereof. 7. Clause (k) of Section 128 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act gives power to the State Government to make rules for the conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Land Management Committee. Such rules are contained in Rules 115-A and 115-13 of the UP ZA and LR Rules. 7. Clause (k) of Section 128 (2) of the UP ZA and LR Act gives power to the State Government to make rules for the conduct and prosecution of suits and proceedings by or against the Land Management Committee. Such rules are contained in Rules 115-A and 115-13 of the UP ZA and LR Rules. To make this judgment complete it may be mentioned that the rule contemplated by Section 122-A is contained in Rule 110-A of the UP ZA and LR Rules. As the validity of the proceedings taken by the Chairman are dependent upon the rules framed under Section 128 (2) (k), and not upon the rules pertaining to the signing of the plaint or the written statement, it is not necessary to make any further comment on the scope of S, 122-A (3) and Rule 110-A. 8. Under Rule 115-A the State Government can issue directions to the Land Management Committee on matters detailed therein. One of the matters enumerated in clause (3) thereof makes reference to subcls. (a) to (h) of clause (1) of Rule 115. The material provision is contained in clause (g) of Rule 115 (1). Thereunder the Land Management Committee has to perform the function of ''the commencement or defence, for and on behalf of the Gaon Samaj, of all suits or proceedings arising from or under the provisions of the Act.'' The State Government can, therefore, issue directions how the suit shall be instituted or defended. 9. Rule 115-B of the UP ZA & LR Rules not only lays down the mode of communication of the directions to the Land Management Committee, but also provides in the Explanation thereto that the directions contained in the Gaon Samaj Manual shall be deemed to be the directions issued in accordance with Rule 115-A. 10. Provisions pertaining to the commencement or defence, for and on behalf of the Gaon Samaj, of all suits or proceedings arising from or under the provisions of the UP ZA & LR Act are contained in paragraphs 128 and 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual. Paragraph 128 runs as below : ''The conduct of Gaon Samaj litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, but shall be a matter of a resolution of the Land Management Committee as a whole. Paragraph 128 runs as below : ''The conduct of Gaon Samaj litigation shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, but shall be a matter of a resolution of the Land Management Committee as a whole. In urgent cases, however, the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Land Management Committee afterwards, by including it in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting.'' 11. This paragraph having been framed under the rule making power conferred on the State Government, shall have the force of law. 12. The next point for consideration is whether this provision is mandatory or merely directory. Suits by or against the Gaon Samaj are instituted or defended by the Land Management Committee on behalf of the Gaon Samaj. The Land Management Committee consists of many members and it is not necessary that what the Chairman desires is the will of the majority of the members of the Land Management Committee. The Chairman may like to institute a suit or defend it, while the majority of the members of the Land Management Committee may be of a different view. The same can be said where the Chairman does not wish to institute or defend a suit. Consequently, the first part of paragraph 128 is a salutary one and if it is held to be merely directory, it will cause complications in view of the fact that the will of the Chairman or a person authorised to sign the plaint or written statement shall prevail and it shall be open to him to defy the majority decision of the Land Management Committee. 13. Paragraph 128 is also a complete provision. The State Government realized that occasions may arise where it may become necessary for the Chairman to take action before the Land Management Committee can meet to discuss the matter. Consequently it was provided in paragraph 128 that in urgent cases the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Land Management Committee by including it in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting. The underlying purpose evidently is that eventually the decision of the Land Management Committee shall prevail. If the Land Management Committee does not approve of the action taken, such action shall become ineffective and a suit, if already instituted, shall fail. 14. The underlying purpose evidently is that eventually the decision of the Land Management Committee shall prevail. If the Land Management Committee does not approve of the action taken, such action shall become ineffective and a suit, if already instituted, shall fail. 14. When paragraph 128 is complete, reasonable and equitable, and lays down how the Land Management Committee can sue or defend, it must be held to be mandatory. 15 ... 16 ... 17 ... 18. In the Land Management Committee Nainu Patti v. The Board of Revenue, UP Allahabad ( 1965 AWR 515 ) S.N. Singh, J., regarded this paragraph to be directory having no force of a statutory law. Considering that paragraph 131 is incomplete and can result in gross injustice to the Land Management Committee, of course, in exceptional circumstances, I (sic) no reason to disagree with the view expressed by brother Singh in the above case. Occasions may arise when there may be difference in opinion between the Land Management Committee on one side and the Tehsildar and the Sub-divisional Officer, on the other. Consequently, if the lawyer is engaged by the Tehsildar or the Sub-divisional Officer, it can happen that the interest of the Land Management Committee may not be suitably safe guarded. In very extraordinary circumstances it may also happen that the Gaon Samaj lawyer is one who cannot for one reason or the other, properly prosecute or defend a suit or proceeding instituted or defended by the Land Management Committee. Paragraph 131 empowers the engagement of special lawyers in important cases only. It makes no provision for the appointment of special lawyers in cases which cannot be classed among important cases. Paragraph 131 of the Gaon Samaj Manual, as it stands at present, must, therefore, be regarded as directory.'' 27. In case of Dhani Ram and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1977 All 491 , it has been held by this Court that chairman of the Land Management Committee could not have filed the written statement or preferred an appeal or revision without the Land Management Committee having passed the resolution or the action of the chairman being ratified by Land Management Committee in the next ensuing meeting. Paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under : ''6. Mr. S. Mirza appearing for the petitioners has placed four contentions before me. Paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under : ''6. Mr. S. Mirza appearing for the petitioners has placed four contentions before me. They are as follows : (1) No resolution of Gaon Sabha was passed to contest the matter before the consolidation authorities at the time of the filing of the written statement by them nor any resolution is on record for filing any appeal or revision. This is in violation of paragraph 128 of the U. P. Gaon Samaj Manual. For a convenient perusal the provisions of paragraph 128 of the Gaon Samaj Manual is reproduced below : 128. ''The conduct of Gaon Samaj litigation shall not depend upon individual discretion of the Chairman of the Land Management Committee, but shall be a matter of a resolution of the Land Management Committee as a whole. In urgent cases, however, the Chairman can take action on his own and seek ratification of the Land Management Committee afterwards, by including it in the agenda of the next ensuing meeting.'' He has relied on the case, Gram Samaj Kairadih v. Deputy Director of Consolidation U. P., Lucknow (1969 All WR (HC) 500), a judgment by Mr. Justice D. S. Mathur, as he then was. At page 503 paragraph 19, while interpreting paragraph 128 of the Gaon Samaj Manual it was held : ''To sum up, the Chairman of the Land Management Committee could not have filed a written statement or preferred an appeal or revision without the Land Management Committee having passed a resolution, or the action of the Chairman being ratified by the Land Management Committee in the next ensuing meeting. The Land Management Committee had not passed such a resolution till the decision of the first revision, nor was the action taken by the Chairman ratified in the next meeting of the Land Management Committee. Hence, neither the written statement nor the appeal nor the revision, was maintainable. In the circumstances, when no written statement could be filed, no second revision could also be preferred by the Chairman after the passing of the resolution by the Land Management Committee, at a belated stage. The second revision under Section 48 of the Act was thus also liable to dismissal.'' (2) ....... (3) ....... (4) ....... 7. Mr. B. R. Gupta appearing for respondent. No. 3 has replied to the contentions raised by Mr. The second revision under Section 48 of the Act was thus also liable to dismissal.'' (2) ....... (3) ....... (4) ....... 7. Mr. B. R. Gupta appearing for respondent. No. 3 has replied to the contentions raised by Mr. Mirza as follows : (1) That a resolution was passed on 16-6-1963 which is Annexure-C-1 to the counter-affidavit which authorised the fighting of the litigation before the consolidation authorities. He conceded that the case was started on 7-9-1962 when objection under Section 9 was filed by the petitioners. He also admitted that a written statement on behalf of Gaon Sabha was filed on 22-2-1963. He has not been able to point out to me whether there was any authority of the Gaon Sabha or of the Chairman, Land Management Committee for filing of the written statement. In this view of the matter the authority referred in 1969 All WR (HC) 500 (Gram Samaj Kairadih v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow) and the portion cited completely applied to the present case.'' 28. Again in case of Gram Samaj Manauta v. Bhondi and others, 1985 AWC 191 , in paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court has taken the same view. Paragraph No. 7 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under : ''7. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the present revision is incompetent as it has not been filed by a Counsel competent to represent the Gaon Sabha (Gram Samaj) or a panel lawyer appointed by the resolution of Gaon Sabha or by the Collector. The present revision has been filed by Sri R.H. Zaidi, Advocate, who is neither panel lawyer for the Gaon Sabha (Gram Samaj) Manauta nor he was appointed by a resolution of the Gaon Sabha or by the Collector, Bijnor. This contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties finds support from the provisions contained in paras 128 and 131 of the U.P. Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Manual. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has cited Gaon Sabha Damanpur v. Jagan Nath Singh, 1984 ALJ 518 wherein an Hon'ble Judge of this Court has held that an appeal filed by a private Counsel on behalf of the Gaon Samaj is not maintainable. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has cited Gaon Sabha Damanpur v. Jagan Nath Singh, 1984 ALJ 518 wherein an Hon'ble Judge of this Court has held that an appeal filed by a private Counsel on behalf of the Gaon Samaj is not maintainable. Therefore, I hold that the revision filed in this Court by Sri R.H. Zaidi, Advocate, as a private Counsel on behalf of Gaon Samaj (Gaon Sabha) Manauta is not a legally filed revision and thus it is not maintainable.'' 29. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that in view of proviso to Section 230 of Revenue Code, 2006, Rules, manuals, assessments, notifications, under any of the enactment repealed by U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, be deem to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of this Court and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until they are superseded by anything done or action taken under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Proviso to Section 230 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is quoted as under : ''**230. Repeal.-(1) The enactments specified in the First Schedule are hereby repealed. (2) ..... (a) ..... (b) ..... (c) ..... (d) ..... (e) ..... Provided that anything done or any action taken (including any rules, manuals, assessments, appointments and transfers made, notifications, summonses, notices, warrants, proclamation issued, powers conferred, leases granted, boundary marks fixed, records of rights and other records prepared or maintained, rights acquired or liabilities incurred) under any such enactment shall, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Code, and shall continue to be in force accordingly, unless and until they are superseded by anything done or action taken under this Code.'' 30. Section 233 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides for rule making power of the State Government. Under Sub Clause 14 of Sub-section (2) of Section 233 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 empowers the State Government to make rules providing the procedure relating to conduct and prosecution of suits, appeal and other proceedings including the procedure of conducting various enquiries under the provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Relevant extract of Section 233 is quoted as under : ''233. Relevant extract of Section 233 is quoted as under : ''233. Power to make rules.-(1) The State Government may by notification make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Code. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may also provide for- (i) ...….. (ii) ...….. (iii) ...….. (iv) ...….. [(iv-a) ...….. (v) ...….. (vi) ...….. (vii) ...….. (viii) ...….. (ix) ...….. (x) ...….. (xi) ...….. (xii) ...….. (xiii) ...….. (xiv) The procedure relating to the conduct and prosecution of suits, appeals and other proceedings, including the procedure of conducting various inquiries under the provisions of this Code,'' 31. Power to make law rest with the legislature, what the legislature may confer rule making power on the Sub-ordinate Authority like State Government. Once such rules are made, they are enforceable as part and partial of the principle Act. 32. I do not find any inconsistency in the provisions made in U.P. Gaon Sabha manual and provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and Rules made thereunder i.e. U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2014, rather the provisions of Gaon Sabha manual, U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and U.P. Revenue Code Rule, 2016 are supplemental to each other. 33. Further in view of the specific provision made in Sub-section (4) of Section 72 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Gaon Sabha, Gram Panchayat or Bhumi Prabandhan Samiti shall not engage any legal practitioner other than one appointed under Section 72 without prior permission of the Collector. 34. I am supported in my view by the judgment of this Court referred in case of Manoj Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P., 2018 (139) RD 189 , where it has been held that no Gram Panchayat, Gaon Sabha, Land Management Committee shall engage any legal practitioner other than appointed under Section 72 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without prior permission of the Collector. 35. Section 73 also provides for representation of Gram Panchayat and Sub-section (1)(c) states that in proceedings before the Board (Board of Revenue) or High Court. Gram Sabha shall be represented by a separate Standing Counsel (Revenue) of Lucknow and Allahabad as the case may be. 35. Section 73 also provides for representation of Gram Panchayat and Sub-section (1)(c) states that in proceedings before the Board (Board of Revenue) or High Court. Gram Sabha shall be represented by a separate Standing Counsel (Revenue) of Lucknow and Allahabad as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 73 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, however provides that nothing in this chapter shall precluded State Government or for appointing such counsel for the conduct or suit provided in which Gram Panchayat is a party on such terms as may be prescribed. 36. Similarly, in case of Daulat Ram (village pradhan) and another v. State of U.P., 2017 (3) ADJ 702 , it has been held that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable since it has not been filed by counsel as provided under Section 73 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 37. Learned counsel for the petitioner further tried to raise an argument on the basis of authority letter, annexed as Annexure 1 to the petition, quoted above, that the petitioner has been authorised by Land Management Committee to file this petition before this Court. 38. From the perusal of the aforesaid authority letter, it is clear that it is vague, though it refers to a resolution dated 20.7.2023 but the copy of the same has not been filed by the petitioner. Further, the aforesaid authority letter has been given by the pradhan to himself and that too without any date. There is not averment in the writ petition as to the fact that ever permission was granted on the resolution of the Land Management Committee by the S.D.M. or Collector for filing the writ petition. 39. Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that the present petition has been filed by Rambabu son of Kedar Nath in his individual capacity. Even in the writ petition there is no averment that the petitioner is a pradhan of the village. It has been further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that a writ petition by a pradhan in individual capacity is not maintainable. The petition is to be filed either by the Gram Sabha or concerned Land Management Committee and not individually by Pradhan in his personal capacity. It has been further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that a writ petition by a pradhan in individual capacity is not maintainable. The petition is to be filed either by the Gram Sabha or concerned Land Management Committee and not individually by Pradhan in his personal capacity. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Neeraj Kumar v. State of U.P., 2015 (3) AWC 3167 , wherein it has been held that a petition in individual capacity by a member of the Gram Panchayat without there being a resolution of Gram Sabha is not maintainable. Further as per the Appendix-2 to the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, it is the Gram Panchayat which is a body corporate and vested with the capacity of suing and being sued in its statutory name. Even by a resolution, the Land Management Committee cannot authorise an individual member of Gaon Sabha (even pradhan) to institute the proceedings on behalf of Gaon Sabha in his individual capacity. 40. In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the view that the writ petition as framed is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed.