Mandatory auction notice requirements and timely balance payment under revenue recovery law can invalidate sale and confirmation.

Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act was construed to require publication of both the date and place of sale, because effective publicity, competitive bidding and fairness are integral to public auction process. Omission to specify the place of sale deprived intending bidders of a real opportunity to participate and rendered the auction invalid. The provision requiring deposit of the balance 85% sale consideration within 30 days was also treated as mandatory, subject only to lawful restraint preventing payment; belated deposit could not support valid confirmation of sale. Non-compliance with these statutory conditions vitiated the auction and the confirmation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1894, publication of the place of sale along with the date of sale was mandatory and omission to specify the place of sale in the notice rendered the auction invalid; (ii) whether remittance of the balance 85% of the sale consideration within 30 days from the date of auction was mandatory and, if not complied with, the sale confirmation became illegal.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1894, publication of the place of sale along with the date of sale was mandatory and omission to specify the place of sale in the notice rendered the auction invalid.

Analysis: Section 36 was construed in the light of the object of public auction, namely, to ensure due publicity, competitive bidding, fairness, and avoidance of arbitrariness or underhand dealing. The statutory requirement that the date and place of sale be published was held to be integral to that object. The prescribed forms could not prevail over the statute, and any omission to specify the place of sale deprived intending bidders of an effective opportunity to participate.

Conclusion: The requirement was mandatory, and omission to mention the place of sale rendered the auction invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether remittance of the balance 85% of the sale consideration within 30 days from the date of auction was mandatory and, if not complied with, the sale confirmation became illegal.

Analysis: The provision requiring deposit of the balance sale amount within 30 days was treated as obligatory, subject only to lawful restraint preventing deposit. Non-compliance attracted forfeiture consequences, and confirmation of the sale could not validly precede compliance with that statutory condition.

Conclusion: The requirement was mandatory, and the belated deposit made the confirmation of sale illegal.

Final Conclusion: The auction sale was vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 36, the appellate authority's order setting aside the sale was restored, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute governing public auction of property requires publication of both the date and place of sale and timely deposit of the balance sale consideration, those conditions are mandatory; non-compliance invalidates the sale and its confirmation.

---