Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the pendency of a writ petition does not absolve litigants from pursuing mandatory, time-bound remedies under special statutes. The Court dismissed an appeal arising from a challenge to the auction of property conducted under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, noting that the aggrieved party had bypassed the statutory mechanism available for contesting such sales. The dispute centered on recovery proceedings initiated against the legal heirs of a defaulter and the subsequent auction of their land. Concluding that the appellant failed to invoke the prescribed remedy within the statutory period, the Court affirmed the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the confirmed sale.

The matter arose from recovery proceedings initiated by revenue authorities to collect arrears stemming from arrack shop bids made in 1972–73 by the deceased husband of the appellant. An ex-parte decree was passed in 1987 for the outstanding amount. After the death of the defaulter in 1988, disputes arose among the legal heirs, during which time the authorities issued auction notices in 2005 to recover the dues.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Jharkhand Government To Declare Saranda AS Wildlife Sanctuary; All Rights Of Tribals And Forest Dwellers Shall Stand Protected

The appellant and another legal heir filed writ petitions challenging the auction notices. Interim orders led to certain deposits being made. Despite this, the authorities conducted an auction on 29.07.2005 and the property was purchased by the fourth respondent. The sale was confirmed on 23.07.2008.

Before the High Court, the appellant challenged the legality of the auction on grounds including pendency of partition proceedings, lack of notice to legal heirs, alleged violation of procedural safeguards, the existence of an earlier ex-parte decree, and limitation. It was also argued that the amounts deposited pursuant to interim orders substantially satisfied the dues and that the auction was conducted during the pendency of writ proceedings. The respondents contended that the deceased had defaulted in payments for arrack shops, that recovery proceedings were validly initiated, and that the appellant failed to invoke remedies under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.

The fourth respondent submitted that the auction was conducted lawfully, the entire purchase amount was deposited on the day of sale, and the appellant never filed the statutory application within 30 days. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, writ appeal, and review application.

The Court recorded that Sections 37-A and 38 of the Act constitute a complete mechanism for setting aside a sale, stating: “Both provisions prescribe a limitation period of 30 days from the date of sale.” It noted that this framework is “mandatory and self-contained, leaving little room for collateral challenges once the period expires.”

On the relationship between pending writ proceedings and statutory remedies, the Court stated: “The record reveals that while the High Court had granted limited interim protection against confirmation of sale, there was no order staying the conduct of the auction itself.” It further stated that “the stay on confirmation does not suspend the statutory obligation to seek redress within 30 days as per Sections 37-A or 38.”

Regarding deposits made under interim orders, the Court recorded: “These payments were made pursuant to interim directions of the High Court and not as part of any statutory application under Section 37-A.” It added that such payments “cannot retrospectively validate non-compliance with the statutory requirement.”

The Court observed that the decree and recovery proceedings had attained finality, noting: “The appellant did not take timely steps to set aside the decree or challenge its enforceability.”

On the validity of the sale, the Court stated that the auction purchaser acquired rights upon confirmation and quoted: “Once, however, the sale is confirmed by that authority, certain rights accrue in favour of the auction-purchaser, and these rights cannot be extinguished except in exceptional cases such as fraud.”

The Court found no material irregularity, mistake, or fraud, recording: “The auction and its subsequent confirmation have not been shown to suffer from any material irregularity, mistake or fraud as contemplated under Section 38.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Orders Home Confinement In Parole Extension Plea; Directs Framework For Convicts Unable To Surrender Due To Age Or Medical Incapacity

The Court also stated: “The appellant was afforded multiple opportunities to present her case… each of which was adjudicated on merits.”

The Court directed: “Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2009 and the impugned order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras are upheld and the present appeal is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. T Raja, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Mr. Oleander D Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratham Sadh, Adv. Mr. Rohit, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Jha, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv.

Case Title: Kolanjiammai (D) Thr LRs v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1319
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013
Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi