SUPREME COURT HOLDS PENDENCY OF WRIT PROCEEDINGS NO GROUND TO NOT AVAIL ALTERNATIVE STATUTORY REMEDIES

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2322 of 2013 titled Kolanjiammal (D) Thr Lrs. v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Perambalur District & Ors. The Court addressed critical issues concerning the scope of statutory remedies available under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and the intersection between revenue recovery proceedings and judicial intervention through writ jurisdiction.The Judgment was authored by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, with Justice Satish Chandra Sharma concurring. This authoritative pronouncement establishes important precedent regarding the obligation of litigants to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking collateral relief through constitutional jurisdiction.

Factual Background
The case traces its origin to 1972-73 when the Appellant’s deceased husband, Ramaswamy Udayar, successfully participated in an auction for arrack and toddy shops located in Thevaiyar and Valikandapuram villages. However, Udayar subsequently defaulted on his payment obligations, precipitating intervention. The District Collector of Perambalur initiated recovery proceedings and obtained an ex-parte decree dated 1987 for Rs. 56,170.20. The Appellant remained unaware of these legal developments at that time. Following Udayar’s death in 1988, complications emerged. Family heirs became embroiled in disputes, and partition proceedings commenced. Meanwhile, revenue authorities issued auction notices in 2005, initiating fresh recovery efforts to collect the allegedly outstanding dues, now accrued with accumulated interest. Both the appellant and her son Karunanidhi filed separate writ petitions challenging these notices. Despite obtaining certain interim protections and making partial deposits as mandated by High Court orders, the authorities proceeded with public auction in July 2005. The successfully bidder, Respondent no. 4, purchased the properties in Patta Nos. 786 and 789, located in Mettupalayam South Village, Veppanthattai Taluk, Perambalur District.

Contentions of the Parties
The Appellant’s Counsel raised comprehensive arguments challenging the High Court’s dismissal of the Writ Appeal and Review application. The central argument emphasized that the revenue authorities illegally conducted the auction on 29.07.2005, specifically because it occurred during the pendency of the writ petition despite an interim order staying the confirmation. The counsel contended that this illegality rendered the filing of statutory applications under Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act unnecessary and redundant. Furthermore, the Appellant highlighted substantial deposits totalling Rs. 3,41,900/- made in compliance with various High Court directions, claiming these payments effectively discharged the alleged dues. Additional contentions focused on procedural irregularities, including the issuance of a second auction notice dated 28.06.2005 while earlier proceedings remained pending, allegedly violating principles of natural justice. The appellant also argued that the 1987 ex-parte decree was obtained without adequate notice and that recovery should have proceeded under the Civil Procedure Code rather than revenue processes. Lastly, counsel asserted that the recovery action faced limitation concerns under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Respondent authorities countered that Udayar’s clear default on his payment obligations necessitated recovery action. They emphasized that the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and Review Application were all dismissed by the High Court, affirming the validity of the auction and confirmation processes. The Respondent no. 4 specifically highlighted that full payment occurred immediately upon sale, with proper confirmation following in 2008 without any subsisting judicial restraint at that juncture. They emphasized that the Appellant failed to invoke the specific statutory remedies and therefore bore the consequences of such procedural omission.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning
The Supreme Court identified the central issue: whether the appellant could challenge the auction proceedings through writ jurisdiction after failing to utilize statutory remedies under Sections 37-A and 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Court upheld the High Court’s position firmly.Justice Pancholi emphasized that Sections 37-A and 38 provide a comprehensive and self-contained mechanism for addressing sale-related grievances. The mandatory 30-day limitation period constitutes an integral component of this statutory framework, which should not be circumvented through collateral challenges after its expiration. The Court unequivocally stated that the auction occurred on 29.07.2005 with confirmation on 23.07.2008 and the Appellant’s complete failure to file any application within the prescribed period barred subsequent interference. The Court rejected the Appellant’s argument that interim orders suspended the obligation to pursue statutory remedies. It noted that while the High Court had restricted confirmation, no order explicitly stayed the auction itself. Therefore, the auction’s conduct did not violate any judicial mandate and the parallel proceedings could not excuse non-compliance with statutory obligations.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s Judgment firmly upholds the principle that statutory remedies must be exhausted within prescribed timeframes and failure to do so forecloses subsequent collateral attacks. The Court dismissed the Appeal, affirming both the High Court’s judgment dated 07.08.2009 and its review Order dated 06.01.2011. This Judgment serves as an important reaffirmation of judicial deference to statutory frameworks designed for orderly recovery proceedings, ensuring that property transactions, once confirmed and transmitted to bona fide purchasers, retain finality and integrity. The Judgment emphasizes that the rule of law requires litigants to follow prescribed procedures diligently and cannot be circumvented through parallel constitutional proceedings.

YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video titled “Rights of Husband in False Matrimonial Cases | 498A Misuse | 2025 Judgments Explained” can be viewed at the Link below: