Writ review of revenue auctions is not confined by Order XXI Rule 90, but mandatory notice and confirmation rules remain binding.

Writ proceedings under Article 226 are not constrained by Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a mandatory limitation, because the CPC does not govern such constitutional review except to a limited extent. A revenue auction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code must still comply strictly with mandatory notice, confirmation and possession requirements; premature auction, issuance of the sale certificate before confirmation, early delivery of possession, and suppression of material objections were treated as breaches going to the root of the sale. The appellate remedy under the revenue code was also recognised as available on the facts, sustaining the appellate authority's order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the principles of Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to a revenue auction sale. (ii) Whether the auction sale conducted under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was vitiated for breach of the mandatory notice, confirmation and possession provisions, and whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals under Section 247 of that Code.

Issue (i): Whether the principles of Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to a revenue auction sale.

Analysis: The Code of Civil Procedure does not govern writ proceedings under Article 226, save for limited procedural principles where the writ court may find them useful. The exclusion of Article 226 proceedings from Section 141 of the Code makes it clear that the procedural restriction contained in Order XXI Rule 90 cannot be imported as a mandatory limitation on the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. A writ court is concerned with legality, fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness in State action, and may intervene where the auction process is contrary to mandatory law or vitiated by illegality, without being confined to the exact framework of execution-sale jurisprudence under the Code.

Conclusion: The principles of Order XXI Rule 90 do not apply as a mandatory rule to writ proceedings under Article 226; the issue is answered against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction sale conducted under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was vitiated for breach of the mandatory notice, confirmation and possession provisions, and whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals under Section 247 of that Code.

Analysis: The sale process was found to have departed from the mandatory scheme of the Revenue Code. The auction was held before the expiry of the statutory notice period, the sale certificate was issued before confirmation, possession was handed over before lawful confirmation, and material objections were suppressed from the confirming authority. These were treated as breaches going to the root of the matter, not mere irregularities. On jurisdiction, once the sale certificate had been issued and the statutory remedy under Section 210 had become ineffective in the circumstances, the appellate remedy under Section 247 was held to be available, and the appellate authority's order could not be interfered with so as to revive an illegal confirmation order.

Conclusion: The sale was held to be vitiated by breach of mandatory statutory requirements, and the Additional Commissioner's appellate jurisdiction was sustained; the issue is answered against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by affirming the High Court's refusal to unsettle the appellate order, while granting limited conditional relief by directing the appellant to make payment within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, the court is not confined by Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a public auction conducted by State revenue authorities must strictly comply with the mandatory statutory requirements governing notice, confirmation and delivery of possession.

---