The provisions of the Gaon Sabha Manual and the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, 1950, which govern the conduct of Gaon Sabha litigation, are mandatory and not directory.

By means of this petition, the petitioner prays for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for cancelling the allotment of the patta on the report dated 24-12-93, approved by the opposite party No. 1 as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. He also prays for issue of a writ in the nature of Mandamus by which he has prayed that the opposite party No. 3 namely; Ram Kumar Goswami be restrained from interfering in peaceful possession of the Gaon Sabha over the pond in dispute.

2. The present writ petition is filed by one Babu Ram, the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha-Shamshuddin Pur Post Office-Khempur, Distt. Faizabad, praying relief for the Gaon Sabha. The petitioner filed this writ petition without serving a copy on Sri R. N. Gupta. , Advocate, the counsel for the Gaon Sabha but we called Sri R. N. Gupta Advocate and directed the petitioner to hand over a copy of this petition to him. Sri R. N. Gupta, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha raised preliminary issues and submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed by the Pradhan himself and secondly, the same has been filed through a private counsel. He placed before us the provisions of Para- 131 of Gaon Sabha Manual which provide that a private counsel cannot be engaged on behalf of the Gaon Sabha unless there is resolution of the Gaon Sabha and further the Gaon Sabha obtains a prior approval of the Collector.

3. So far as the first question is concerned that the present writ petition is filed by Babu Ram, the Pradhan on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, the contention of the petitioners counsel is that the petitioner filed this petition on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the petition be treated to be filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, therefore, the present petition is treated to be filed by the Gaon Sabha. Apart from this, it is submitted by the petitioners counsel that there is a resolution of the Gaon Sabha authorising the Pradhan to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the Patta and it is necessary to engage a private counsel. The petitioners counsel filed a copy of the resolution as Annexure No. 2. From the perusal of the Annexure No. 2, it appears that the Pradhan was authorised to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the patta and if, he thinks proper then he may engage a private counsel. There is no resolution that the Pradhan is authorised to file a writ petition before this Court. Section 198 (4) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act clearly authorises the Collector of the District to initiate proceedings on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved by an allotment of land and if the allotment is irregular, then he may cancel the allotment and the lease. Section 333 of U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act empowers the Board to call for the record of any case or proceedings and pass orders. In these circumstances the resolu tion authorised the petitioner to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the Patta and not to file a writ petition directly.

4. In any case, even if this petition is treated to be filed by the Gaon Sabha, then the contention of Sri R. N. Gupta that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed through a private counsel, has sufficient force. It is submitted by the petitioners counsel that in the case of Gaon Sabha v. Dy. Director of Consolida tion and others, reported in 1986 RD at page 26 which is equivalent to 1986 ALJ at page-293, this Court held that a private counsel can be engaged by the Gaon Sabha and the provisions of Para-131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual are only directory and not mandatory. Provisions of Para-128 of Gaon Sabha no doubt authorise the Land Management Committee to conduct the litigation by resolution. Para 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual provides that the lawyers shall be appointed who shall represent the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti and give legal advice when necessary but it fur ther provides that the committee shall not engage any lawyer oth