The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated November 14, 2025, has dismissed an appeal in the case of Kolanjiammal (D) Thr LRs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur District & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013). The Court affirmed that a challenge to a public auction conducted under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, cannot be entertained under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 if the appellant fails to invoke the mandatory statutory remedies within the prescribed limitation period.
The bench, comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, upheld the final judgment dated 07.08.2009 and order dated 06.01.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which had dismissed the appellant’s writ appeal and subsequent review application.
Background of the Case
The case originates from 1972-73, when the late Ramaswamy Udayar defaulted on payments for arrack shops. This led the District Collector, Perambalur, to obtain an ex-parte decree in 1987 for Rs. 56,170.20/-. Mr. Udayar passed away in 1988.
In 2005, the revenue authorities issued auction notices to recover the alleged dues with interest. The appellant, Mr. Udayar’s widow, and her son filed separate writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 25194 and 12933 of 2005) before the Madras High Court challenging the auction notices.
Despite interim orders and partial deposits made by the appellant as directed by the High Court, the auction was conducted on 29.07.2005, and the property was sold to respondent no. 4, the auction-purchaser. The sale was subsequently confirmed on 23.07.2008.
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 797 of 2008) and a subsequent Review Application (R.A. No. 129 of 2009). The High Court noted that the appellant had not filed any petition under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, to set aside the sale within the statutorily prescribed 30-day period. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decisions, the legal heirs of the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant contended that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ appeal without examining the legality of the public auction sale notice. It was argued that the auction conducted on 29.07.2005 was illegal as it took place during the pendency of the writ petition, despite an interim order from the High Court staying the confirmation of the sale. The appellant argued this rendered the filing of an application under Sections 37-A or 38 unnecessary.
The appellant further submitted that a total of Rs. 3,41,900/- had been deposited in compliance with High Court directions, thereby satisfying the alleged dues. It was also argued that the auction was barred by limitation under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that recovery should have been pursued under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, given the 1987 ex-parte civil decree.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents (State) submitted that the High Court’s orders were correct. They argued that the appellant failed to invoke the available 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.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (the auction-purchaser) argued that the auction was validly held on 29.07.2005, and the full amount was deposited the same day. The sale was confirmed on 23.07.2008 when no stay order was in force. It was submitted that the appellant’s failure to exhaust the statutory 30-day remedy barred any belated challenge. Counsel also noted that the sale certificate was issued, the property was registered, and it was subsequently sold to bona fide purchasers, rendering the appellant’s claims infructuous.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court framed the principal issue for consideration as “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.”
The judgment, authored by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, observed that Sections 37-A and 38 of the Act “provide a complete mechanism” for setting aside a sale, both prescribing a limitation period of 30 days. The Court held, “This statutory framework is mandatory and self-contained, leaving little room for collateral challenges once the period expires.”
The Court noted that the appellant “admittedly did not file any application before the competent authority within the 30-day limitation… Therefore, the bar of limitation applies squarely”.
Addressing the appellant’s main contention regarding the High Court’s interim order, the Supreme Court found the argument to be “misconceived.” The judgment clarified: “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.”
The bench decisively stated, “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.”
Regarding the deposits made by the appellant, the Court found they were “made pursuant to interim directions of the High Court and not as part of any statutory application under Section 37-A”. The Court emphasized that Section 37-A “mandates both a deposit and a formal application to the Collector within 30 days of sale, which was admittedly not done.”
The Court also found the argument that recovery should have proceeded under the CPC to be lacking merit, stating that once the arrears were certified as recoverable under the Revenue Recovery Act, the authorities were empowered to proceed with revenue processes.
Citing the case of Valji Khimji and Company v. Official Liquidator… (2008) 9 SCC 299, the Court reiterated that once a sale is confirmed, rights accrue in favour of the auction-purchaser which “cannot be extinguished except in exceptional cases such as fraud.” The Court found that the auction in this case was not “shown to suffer from any material irregularity, mistake or fraud”.
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court “rightly concluded” that the appellant’s failure to act under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Act barred any later challenge, and that the Review Bench “correctly held” there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
The Court summarized its findings as follows: 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 D. The High Court’s concurrent findings… do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
“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,” the Supreme Court ordered.
