Full Judgment Text
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
respondent no. 2 on the ground that the sale pursuant to the above
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2025.11.14
17:33:13 IST
Reason:
said notice has not been challenged by the appellant.
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
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)
J U D G M E N T
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
respondent no. 2 on the ground that the sale pursuant to the above
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2025.11.14
17:33:13 IST
Reason:
said notice has not been challenged by the appellant.
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