- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In this writ petition Hon'ble R. B. Misra, J. passed several orders (on the order sheet) from 10-8-2001 till 23-11-2004 in respect of service upon respondents. District Magistrate and other officials were also directed to effect service and file affidavit of compliance, which was accordingly done. District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate were also directed to be made parties in the writ petition. However at the time of arguments on 2-8-2006 no one appeared on behalf of the respondents except respondent No. 14 Ram Swaroop one of the auction purchasers on whose behalf Sri A. K. Sharma learned Counsel has argued the case. Sri M. M. D. Agarwal learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing Counsel represented the State authorities. On 2-8-2006 all the substitution applications were allowed after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and judgment was reserved (order on the order sheet ).
(2.) THIS writ petition discloses a shocking state of affairs. Agricultural land belonging to the State and under the management of the Gaon Sabha admeasuring about 80 acres has been sold in auction only for Rs. 400/- for realization of some costs payable by Gaon Sabha petitioner to the respondents. Respondents 3, 4 and 5 Ram Narain, Sadan Sahkari Samiti and Manphool obtained a decree of costs amounting to Rs. 410. 20/- against Gaon Sabha Makrandpur, District Etawah in O. S. No. 170 of 1964. For realization of the costs, Execution case No. 95 of 1968 was filed praying therein that for realization of the aforesaid costs Plot No. 2/admeasuring 32. 15 acres and Plot No. 14/1 admeasuring 48. 08 acres belonging to Gaon Sabha concerned be attached and sold. The other contesting respondents of this writ petition purchased the land in dispute in auction on 28- 11-1969. Gaon Sabha filed objections under Section 47 C. P. C. against the said auction on 11/12 February 1970. The objections under Section 47 C. P. C. numbered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 1970 were allowed by Munsif, Etawah, Court No. 5 through order dated 15-5-1981. The learned Munsif held that price of Rs. 1/- per bigha was shocking (80 acres come to about 400 Kuchcha bighas ). Trial Court further held that execution application was filed after one year of the decree hence by virtue of Order XXI, Rule 22 C. P. C. it was necessary to issue notice to the judgment debtor which was not done (Before the amendment of C. P. C. in the year 1976 notice was necessary to be issued if execution was filed after one year from the date of decree. Through Act No. 104 of 1976, the said period of one year has been substituted by two years ). Against the said order Civil Revision No. 69 of 1981 was filed by Ram Babu and Brij Bhushan Lal only (respondents 1a and 2 ). The other auction purchasers respondents were impleaded as proforma opposite parties. A. D. J. /special Judge (E. C. Act), Etawah through judgment and order dated 25-7-1987, allowed the revision, set-aside the order of the trial Court dated 15-5-1981 and rejected the objections filed by Gaon Sabha through its Pradhan under Section 47 C. P. C. hence this writ petition by Gaon Sabha.
(3.) THE first ground taken by the learned A. D. J for allowing the revision was that"from perusal of the objections filed under Section 47 C. P. C. it is apparent that the objection was filed by the Pradhan on behalf of the Gaon Sabha in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of representative of Gaon Sabha and the resolution to this effect was neither passed nor copy thereof was enclosed with the objections hence the institution of the objection was illegal and it must have been summarily rejected". Learned A. D. J also referred to paragraphs 128 to 132 of Gaon Samaj Manual. After holding that objections were filed by the Pradhan on behalf of Gaon Sabha objections should have been held to be maintainable. Gaon Sabha is always represented by Pradhan. It is not understandable that what the learned A. D. J meant by first saying that objections were filed by the Pradhan on behalf of Gaon Sabha and then saying that objections were filed by the Pradhan in his personal capacity. This observation is self- contradictory. In any case even if there was some technical flaw in filing the objections its benefit could not be given to the respondents to usurp the property of the Gaon Sabha. The Court is required to be more concerned about the substance than mere technicalities. The Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3, has held that suit filed by the Bank shall not fail due to absence of signature of proper officer in plaint. Same principle will apply in the instant case also; even if it is held that there was some defect in the representation of Gaon Sabha as mentioned in the application under Section 47 C. P. C. However I do not find any substantial defect in the description of Gaon Sabha in the application under Section 47 C. P. C. Gaon Sabha could sue through Pradhan and it in fact filed objections through Pradhan.;