Pendency Of Writ Proceedings No Ground To Not Avail Alternative Statutory Remedies : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that mere pendency of a writ petition does not relieve litigants of their obligation to exhaust alternative time-bound remedies provided under special laws.

A Bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed an appeal filed by a litigant who, despite having an alternative statutory remedy under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (“the Act”) to challenge the auction of her property, chose instead to approach the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition. The appellant had argued that filing a separate application under the Act was unnecessary because the High Court, in the writ proceedings, had already granted an interim order staying the 'confirmation of the sale'.

Affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellant's Writ Petition, the judgment authored by Justice Pancholi observed that “the appellant's failure to avail herself of the specific statutory mechanism cannot be excused merely because parallel proceedings were pending before the High Court.”

Moreover, the Court drew a critical distinction that proved fatal to the appellant's case. It noted that while the High Court had issued an interim order "staying confirmation of the sale," there was no order staying the conduct of the auction itself.

"The auction held on 29.07.2005 was not in violation of any subsisting judicial restraint," the Court observed, emphasizing that the authorities acted within their rights by proceeding with the auction. The appellant's belief that the entire process was frozen was based on a "misconceived" interpretation of the court's limited order, the court said adding that “the stay on confirmation (of sale) does not suspend the statutory obligation to seek redress within 30 days as per Sections 37-A or 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act.”

Referencing Rajasthan Housing Board & Others v. Krishna Kumari, (2005) 13 SCC 151, the Court emphasized that interim protection cannot be used to frustrate statutory procedures for recovery, pointing out that the interim stay on sale confirmation didn't preclude the Appellant from availing the statutory remedy under the Act.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: KOLANJIAMMAL (D) THR LRS. VERSUS THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERAMBALUR DISTRICT & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1108

Click here to read/download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. T Raja, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mary Mitzy, Adv. Mr. Oleander D Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratham Sadh, Adv. Mr. Rohit, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Jha, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv.