Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. vs The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors.

2025 INSC 1319 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2322 OF 2013

KOLANJIAMMAL (D) THR LRS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERAMBALUR DISTRICT & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. This is an appeal against the final Judgment dated 07.08.2009 passed

by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 797 of

2008 and the final Order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Madras in Review Application No. 129 of 2009 by

which the High Court dismissed the challenge raised by the

appellant against the Public Auction Notice issued by the

Signature Not Verified respondent no. 2 on the ground that the sale pursuant to the above Digitally signed by NAVEEN D

said notice has not been challenged by the appellant. Date: 2025.11.14 17:33:13 IST Reason:

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 1 of 15

2. The factual matrix of the present case as per the appellant is that in

1972-73, late Ramaswamy Udayar successfully bid for arrack shops

in Thevaiyar and Valikandapuram villages but later defaulted on

payments, leading the District Collector, Perambalur, to obtain an

ex-parte decree in 1987 for Rs. 56,170.20/-. Unaware of this, his

widow (the appellant) and family faced recovery proceedings years

later. After Ramaswamy’s death in 1988, disputes arose among his

legal heirs and while partition proceedings were pending, the

authorities issued auction notices in 2005 to recover the alleged

dues with interest. Karunanidhi, Ramaswamy’s son and the

appellant filed separate writ petitions before the High Court

challenging these notices. Despite interim orders and partial

deposits made as directed by the High Court, the authorities

conducted the auction in July 2005 and sold the property to the

respondent no. 4.

3. In the High Court, the Writ Appeals Nos. 797 and 992 of 2008, arising

from Writ Petitions Nos. 25194 and 12933 of 2005, were dismissed

by the impugned common judgment. The appellant challenged the

auction-sale of properties under Patta Nos. 786 and 789,

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 2 of 15 Mettupalayam South Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur

District, conducted by the revenue authorities under the Tamil Nadu

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred as “the Revenue

Recovery Act”). The Court noted that while the appellant had

deposited various amounts during the pendency of the Writ

Petitions/Writ Appeals, the appellant had not filed any petition

under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act to set aside

the sale within the prescribed 30-day period. The auction, held on

29.07.2005 and confirmed on 23.07.2008, could not be challenged

belatedly, as more than 4 years had passed. Consequently, the

Court dismissed the Writ Appeals, denied relief to set aside the sale

and directed that any amounts deposited by the appellant be

refunded within 15 days, with the appellant to notify the authorities

of such deposits.

4. Thereafter, the High Court, in Review Application No. 129 of 2009,

dismissed the review application filed by the appellant with respect

to the Division Bench’s judgment dated 07.08.2009 in Writ Appeal

No. 797 of 2008, which had upheld the dismissal of Writ Petition No.

25194 of 2005. The original writ petition sought to quash the auction

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 3 of 15 notice dated 28.06.2005 for properties in Patta Nos. 786 and 789,

Mettupalayam South Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur

District. The Court noted that the auction took place on 29.07.2005,

with the respondent no. 4 (the auction-purchaser) depositing the full

amount the same day and the sale was confirmed on 23.07.2008. The

appellant had not filed any application under Sections 37-A or 38 of

the Revenue Recovery Act, within the 30-day statutory period to set

aside the sale. Vide the impugned order, the Court held that the

confirmation date does not extend the limitation period, found no

error in the Division Bench’s judgment and consequently dismissed

the review application.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has

filed the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court

erred in dismissing Writ Appeal and Review Application filed by the

appellant without examining the legality of the Public Auction Sale

Notice issued by the revenue authorities. It was argued that the

auction conducted on 29.07.2005 was illegal, as it took place during

the pendency of Writ Petition No. 25194 of 2005, despite an interim

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 4 of 15 order staying confirmation of the sale, thereby rendering the filing

of any application under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue

Recovery Act unnecessary. It was submitted that the appellant had

already deposited a total of Rs. 3,41,900/- in compliance with

various directions of the High Court, thereby satisfying the alleged

dues.

7. It was further urged that the authorities improperly issued a second

auction notice dated 28.06.2005 on the same demand while the

earlier proceedings were still sub judice, in violation of procedural

safeguards and principles of natural justice. It was also emphasized

that the auction was conducted and later confirmed on 23.07.2008 in

favor of the respondent No. 4, despite pending partition appeals, no

prior default notice to the legal heirs and reliance on a 1987 ex-parte

decree obtained without the knowledge of the appellant or her late

husband.

8. Additionally, learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the

arrears related to the deceased husband of the appellant and that

no proper notice or account details were provided to his legal heirs.

It is argued that the auction was also barred by limitation under

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 5 of 15 Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and since the amount had

already been determined through an ex-parte civil decree in

Original Suit No. 47 of 1986, recovery should have been executed

under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “the

CPC”), not through revenue recovery proceedings.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3

submitted that the appellant’s husband, Ramasamy Udayar, who ran

arrack and toddy shops during 1972-73, defaulted on payments,

causing notional loss to the Government. Despite repeated notices,

neither his widow nor children cleared the dues, prompting

recovery proceedings and auction of the family’s properties. The

appellant’s writ petition (Writ Petition No. 25194 of 2005), writ

appeal (Writ Appeal No. 797 of 2008) and review application

(Review Application No. 129 of 2009) were all dismissed by the High

Court. It is contended that the High Court’s orders were correct, that

the appellant failed to invoke remedies under Sections 37-A or 38 of

the Revenue Recovery Act and that the auction and its confirmation

were validly conducted after due process.

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 6 of 15

10. It is further argued that the amount due was quantified by a 1987 ex-

parte decree, the second auction notice dated 28.06.2005 was

necessary due to increased dues and the appellant’s disputes with

other heirs caused delays. Since the property sale has been

confirmed, the appeal deserves to be rejected.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, submitted that the auction

of the appellant’s property took place validly on 29.07.2005, the

respondent no. 4 (the auction-purchaser) deposited the full amount

the same day and the sale was later confirmed on 23.07.2008 when

no stay was in force. Since the appellant never filed an application

to set aside the sale under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue

Recovery Act within the prescribed 30 days, the High Court rightly

dismissed her writ petition and writ appeal for failure to exhaust

statutory remedies.

12. It is further submitted that the auction and subsequent confirmation

were conducted lawfully, refunds were ordered where appropriate

and the appellant’s challenge is belated and an abuse of process. It

is also explained that, following the High Court’s final orders in

2009, the sale certificate was issued, the property was registered in

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 7 of 15 the name of the respondent no. 4 and subsequently, the property

was sold to bona fide purchasers, making the appellant’s claims

infructuous.

13. Upon a careful examination of the rival submissions, the material on

record and the applicable provisions of law, the principal issue for

consideration is whether the appellant, having failed to invoke the

statutory remedies available under Sections 37-A and 38 of the

Revenue Recovery Act, can subsequently challenge the auction

proceedings through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

14. Sections 37-A and 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act provide a

complete mechanism for setting aside a sale of immovable property

conducted under the Act - either by way of deposit of the due

amount (Section 37-A) or by challenging material irregularity,

mistake or fraud in the conduct of the sale (Section 38). Both

provisions prescribe a limitation period of 30 days from the date of

sale. This statutory framework is mandatory and self-contained,

leaving little room for collateral challenges once the period expires.

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 8 of 15

15. In the present case, the auction sale took place on 29.07.2005 and

the confirmation of sale was made on 23.07.2008. The appellant

admittedly did not file any application before the competent

authority within the 30-day limitation prescribed under Sections 37-

A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, the bar of limitation

applies squarely and the High Court was correct in holding that

belated interference with the sale, after more than four years, was

impermissible.

16. The appellant has argued that the auction was conducted during the

pendency of Writ Petition No. 25194 of 2005 and that the High

Court’s interim order staying the confirmation of sale rendered any

statutory application unnecessary. This contention is misconceived.

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. Consequently, the auction

held on 29.07.2005 was not in violation of any subsisting judicial

restraint. Moreover, the stay on confirmation does not suspend the

statutory obligation to seek redress within 30 days as per Sections

37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The appellant’s failure to

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 9 of 15 avail herself of the specific statutory mechanism cannot be excused

merely because parallel proceedings were pending before the

High Court.

17. In Rajasthan Housing Board & Others v. Krishna Kumari, (2005)

13 SCC 151, this Court, while relying on the case of State of M.P. v.

M.V. Vyavsaya & Co., (1997) 1 SCC 156, cautioned against

interference with lawful revenue recovery proceedings through

interim orders, observing that courts should not deprive the State of

legitimate revenues unless a clear case of illegality is made out. The

Court emphasized that interim protection cannot be used to

frustrate statutory procedures for recovery. The relevant paragraph

reads as under:

“6. In State of M.P. v. M.V. Vyavsaya & Co. [(1997) 1 SCC 156] this Court in paras 15 and 19 observed as follows:

(SCC pp. 162 & 164)

“15. … This Court has also repeatedly emphasised the inadvisability of making interim orders which have the effect of depriving the State (the people of the State) of the revenues legitimately due to it. The court should not take upon itself the responsibility of staying the recovery of amounts due to the State unless a clear case of illegality is made out and the balance of convenience is duly considered. Otherwise, the odium of

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 10 of 15 unlawfully depriving the State/the people of the monies lawfully due to it/them would lie upon the court.”

18. In the present case, the appellant relied upon deposits totaling

approximately Rs. 3,41,900/- made pursuant to the interim orders of

the High Court to contend that the alleged dues stood substantially

satisfied. However, these payments were made pursuant to interim

directions of the High Court and not as part of any statutory

application under Section 37-A of the Revenue Recovery Act. The

law under Section 37-A mandates both a deposit and a formal

application to the Collector within 30 days of sale, which was

admittedly not done. Therefore, these payments, though made in

good faith, cannot retrospectively validate non-compliance with the

statutory requirement.

19. The contention that the 1987 ex-parte decree was obtained without

notice and that recovery proceedings were barred by limitation or

should have proceeded under the CPC lacks merit. Once the

arrears were certified as recoverable under the provisions of the

Revenue Recovery Act, the authorities were empowered to proceed

with recovery through revenue processes. The appellant did not

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 11 of 15 take timely steps to set aside the decree or challenge its

enforceability. Hence, the decree and consequent recovery action

attained finality.

20. This Court in the case of Valji Khimji and Company v. Official

Liquidator of Hindustan Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limited and

Others, (2008) 9 SCC 299, held that once a sale is confirmed by the

competent authority, rights accrue in favour of the auction-

purchaser which cannot be extinguished except in cases of proven

fraud or substantial irregularity. The relevant paragraph reads as

under:

“30. In the first case mentioned above i.e. where the auction is not subject to confirmation by any authority, the auction is complete on the fall of the hammer, and certain rights accrue in favour of the auction-purchaser. However, where the auction is subject to subsequent confirmation by some authority (under a statute or terms of the auction) the auction is not complete and no rights accrue until the sale is confirmed by the said authority. 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.”

21. In the present case, the auction and its subsequent confirmation

have not been shown to suffer from any material irregularity,

mistake or fraud as contemplated under Section 38 of the Revenue

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 12 of 15 Recovery Act. The respondent no. 4 (the auction-purchaser) paid

the full purchase amount on the day of sale and the sale was

confirmed only after due procedure and in the absence of any valid

challenge. The issuance of the sale certificate and registration of the

property in the purchaser’s name, followed by subsequent transfers

to bona fide purchasers, confer finality on the transaction.

22. The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment,

rightly concluded that the appellant’s failure to act under Sections

37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act within the prescribed time

barred any later challenge. The Review Bench of the High Court,

vide the impugned order, correctly held that there was no error

apparent on the face of record warranting review. The findings were

consistent with the statutory scheme and supported by application

of judicial mind.

23. Furthermore, it is well settled that a review proceeding cannot be

treated as an appeal in disguise. As held in Lily Thomas v. Union

of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 and Parsion Devi & Others v. Sumitri

Devi & Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, a review can be entertained only

when there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 13 of 15 findings of the High Court are based on a comprehensive

appreciation of facts and law and no such error has been

demonstrated by the appellant.

24. There is also no material to suggest that the High Court exceeded

its jurisdiction or disregarded any principle of natural justice. The

appellant was afforded multiple opportunities to present her case,

first in the writ petition, then in the writ appeal, and finally in review,

each of which was adjudicated on merits. The concurrent findings of

the High Court, therefore, do not disclose any perversity or manifest

error warranting interference.

25. In light of the above detailed analysis, it is evident that:

A. The appellant failed to invoke the statutory remedies under

Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act within the

prescribed time;

B. The auction held on 29.07.2005 and confirmed on 23.07.2008

was conducted in accordance with law;

C. The interim orders of the High Court did not preclude the

appellant from pursuing the statutory remedy; and

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 14 of 15 D. The High Court’s concurrent findings in the Writ Appeal and

Review Application are well-founded and do not suffer from

any legal infirmity.

26. 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.

…..........……….…………………….J. [SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

….....….....………………………….J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 14, 2025.

Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 Page 15 of 15