Sale of Immovable Properties and Invoking Jurisdiction of High Court in Such Matters

Auction of Immovable Properties and Invoking Jurisdiction of High Court in Such Matters

In a recent Judgment issue was 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 ?

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. 

It was held that interference in sale was found to be impermissible after a lapse of certain period. It was held that 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. Interim protection cannot be used to frustrate statutory procedures for recovery.

For more details refer KOLANJIAMMAL (D) THR LRS. Revenue Divisional Officer [2025] GCtR 1702 (SC).