S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under Section 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
(2.) THE trial court after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the land in dispute was one of public utility and since it came in possession of the opposite parties 2 and 3 after the 8th of August 1946, the opposite parties were liable to be ejected and further liable to pay Rs. 200/ - as damages. Accordingly, an order for the ejectment of opposite parties 2 and 3 and for recovery of Rs. 200/ - as damages was passed. This order of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner. Opposite parties 2 and 3 preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue and a single member of the Board allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the two subordinate courts and dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. The order of the Board was passed on 6th of May 1959 by a single member of the Board who did not obtain the concurrence of another member which in law he was bound to obtain. This petition is directed against the order of the Board mentioned above. 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. 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.
(3.) I have considered both these submissions. But, in my opinion they lack force and should be overruled. So far as the first objection of the learned Counsel is concerned, this point was not raised in the counter affidavit and the Pardhan who has executed the Vakalatnama in favour of Sri G.N. Verma is the same person who has been litigating from the very beginning as the Pardhan and Chairman of the Land Management Committee. If the learned Counsel wanted to contest this matter, he should have taken objection in the counter affidavit or similar objection should have been taken at some prior stage during the course of the litigation which could have been determined by the revenue courts or the Petitioner would have filed necessary proof in this Court to show that the Pradhan was the Chairman of the Land Management Committee. This objection is, therefore, overruled.;