Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are collateral of the petitioner, who have not put any contest. Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel has ably assisted the Court on behalf of respondent No. 3. Learned Standing counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14th March, 1997, passed by the Additional Collector, Gorakhpur, in a revision filed by the Gaon Sabha, respondent No. 3 holding, that the memo of revision as presented was competent, and that the revision could be entertained even it was signed by a private person, namely, respondent No. 4. The Revising Authority relied on the decision in the case of Gaon Sabha v. Ram Karan Singh, 1981 RD 1 to support the said legal proposition inferred by him.

3. Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inference so drawn by the learned Additional Collector is erroneous in law without considering the provisions of Paragrah-131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual as contained in Chapter-6 thereof, and that a private person had no authority under law to sign the memo of revision and get it presented through the District Government Counsel. He contends that it has been time and again held by this Court that the procedure prescribed in law has to be followed and that it should have been done in that manner alone for which reliance is placed on a Division Bench Judgement in the case of Babu Ram Verma v. Sub-Divisional Officer and others, 1996 AWC 1035, followed by another Division Bench judgement in the case of Gram Panchayat, Pusawali Block-Junawai of etc. v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (2) ALJ 175.

4. He has further relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge in the case of Vrindaban and others v. Gaon Sabha Omri Kalan, 1980 AWC 243 and the decision in the case of Gaon Sabha v. Dy. Director of Consolidation Gyanpur, Varanasi and others, 1983 RD 75 to support his submission.

5. The contention in short is that the impugned order is unsustainable as it has totally over looked the law propounded in the decisions aforesaid and that it has erroneously placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Gaon Sabha v. Ram Karan Singh (Supra) which is not a direct authority on the proposition that was to be taken into consideration for deciding the instant case.

6. Sri Chaubey on the other hand relying on the same decision in the case of Gaon Sabha v. Ram Karan Singh (Supra) submits that the answering respondent No. 4 being a villager is entitled to use the road which is the subject matter of encroachment and, therefore, he has every right to contest the claim on behalf of the Gaon Sabha not only collectively but also individually. He contends that the memo of revision was, therefore, signed in that capacity, moreso, when the Gram Pradhan has refused to sign the memo of revision. He further contends that the revision was signed in his individual capacity and the District Government Counsel is entitled to represent the Gaon Sabha as held in the decision which has been relied upon by the learned Additional Collector. There being no legal infirmity, a minor irregularity cannot be fatal for the revision to be maintainable and hence the impugned order does not require any interference.

7. Learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha Sri M.N. Singh has assisted the Court by inviting the attention of the Court to Paragraph131 of the Gaon Sabha Manaual which is to the following effect:-

“131. Lawyers have been appointed who shall represent the Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti (Land Management Committee) and give it legal advice where necessary. The Committee shall not engage any lawyer other than the penal lawyer appointed. In important cases, however, special lawyers can be engaged with the specific provision of the Collector in writing.

There is a Vakil or Mukhtar in each tehsil and one civil and one revenue lawyer at