Supreme Court Holds Failure to Invoke Sections 37-A/38 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act-Bars Challenge to Revenue Auction

Case Name: Kolanjianmmal (D) through LRs v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur District & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013; 2025 INSC 1319
Date of Judgment/Order: 14 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Held: The Supreme Court held that once immovable property has been sold under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, a challenge to the sale is permissible only through applications under Sections 37-A or 38, which must be filed within 30 days from the date of the auction. The appellant, having failed to invoke either remedy, was barred from challenging the auction belatedly through writ jurisdiction. The Court clarified that the High Court’s interim order staying confirmation of sale did not excuse the statutory obligation to file a timely application, and the pendency of writ proceedings did not suspend limitation prescribed under the Act.

Summary: The appellant’s husband, who had bid for arrack shops in 1972–73, allegedly defaulted in payments, resulting in a 1987 ex-parte decree for ₹56,170.20/-. Years later, the Revenue Department initiated recovery proceedings and issued auction notices in 2005. The appellant and her son filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court, during which interim orders were passed and partial deposits were made. Despite this, the authorities auctioned the property on 29.07.2005 and later confirmed the sale on 23.07.2008. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, writ appeals, and review petitions, holding that the appellant failed to seek statutory remedy under Sections 37-A or 38 within 30 days. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that she was unaware of the decree, that the auction occurred during the pendency of writ proceedings, that the authorities acted without notice to legal heirs, and that the claim was barred by limitation or ought to have been recovered through CPC execution proceedings rather than revenue recovery mechanisms. The respondents countered that the appellant and her family consistently defaulted, failed to avail statutory remedies, and that the sale had attained finality, with the property already transferred to bona fide purchasers.

Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant’s failure to file an application under Sections 37-A or 38 within the mandatory statutory period rendered any later challenge impermissible. The Court found no illegality in the conduct or confirmation of the auction, reiterated that interim judicial protection does not override statutory remedies, and emphasised that rights had already vested in the auction purchaser long before the challenge was made. It held that no material irregularity, fraud, or jurisdictional error had been demonstrated, and therefore no interference under Article 226 or Article 136 was warranted, thereby affirming the validity of the auction and subsequent transfers.