IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Auction proceedings – Once arrears were certified as recoverable under provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, authorities were empowered to proceed with recovery through revenue processes – Interim orders of High Court did not preclude appellant from pursuing statutory remedy.
(2) Stay on confirmation of sale does not suspend statutory obligation to seek redress within 30 days as per Sections 37-A or 38 of Revenue Recovery Act.
(3) Review proceeding cannot be treated as appeal in disguise.

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 respondent no. 2 on the ground that the sale pursuant to the above said notice has not been challenged by the appellant.

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, 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 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 illega