Strict compliance in revenue recovery sales required; auction invalid where publicity, timing, and notice to joint owner were lacking.

Strict compliance with the statutory procedure for revenue recovery sales of immovable property is mandatory, so inadequate publicity and failure to observe the required time-gap rendered the auction invalid and liable to be set aside. A sale cannot also be sustained against a joint owner's interest when that person had an independent proprietary share and was not given prior notice; such omission was treated as a fatal defect affecting due process. The writ petitions were allowed, the auction proceedings and sale confirmation were quashed, and the department was permitted to proceed afresh in accordance with law if the required deposit and further steps were not complied with.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the auction sale of immovable property under the revenue recovery proceedings was vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, including publicity and timing requirements; (ii) Whether the auction could be sustained without notice to a joint owner/third party whose share in the property was brought to sale.

Issue (i): Whether the auction sale of immovable property under the revenue recovery proceedings was vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, including publicity and timing requirements.

Analysis: The statutory scheme governing sale of immovable property under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 requires the prescribed procedure to be followed strictly. The Court noted that the sale notice and auction were conducted without adequate publicity and without observance of the statutory time-gap contemplated for such sales. Where the law prescribes a particular mode and timetable for sale, deviation is not a mere curable defect but goes to the legality of the sale itself.

Conclusion: The auction sale was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction could be sustained without notice to a joint owner/third party whose share in the property was brought to sale.

Analysis: The Court held that the revenue authorities could proceed against the defaulter's property, but not against the property of persons who were neither liable for the tax arrears nor given notice before sale. Since the joint owner was not served with notice despite his interest in the property, his proprietary rights were affected without due process. The Court treated the absence of notice to the interested non-defaulter as a fatal defect.

Conclusion: The auction could not be sustained against the joint owner's interest for want of notice, and the sale was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned auction proceedings and sale confirmation were set aside, and the department was left at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law if the directed deposit and further steps were not complied with.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale of immovable property in revenue recovery must conform strictly to the statutory procedure, and a sale conducted in breach of mandatory safeguards or without notice to persons with an independent interest in the property is liable to be invalidated in writ jurisdiction.

---