ANGALAMMAI AMMAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TIRUCHIRAPALLI ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujarn J. dated 20-11-1975, rendered in W.-P. No. 2956 of 1972. The learned Judge disposed of two writ petitions, one W. P. No. 2956 of 1972, filed by the appellant herein and the other W. P. No. 4576, of 1975 (Pararnasivam Pillai v. Angammal and others) filed by the 4th respondent herein, by a common judgment. For the purpose of understanding the controversy between the parties, it is necessary to refer to certain facts.

(2.) The appellant was the original owner of S. Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of an extent of 3.20 and 0.20 acres respectively in Ariyamangalam village, Tiruchirapalli taluk. She had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1600/- on 21-10-1957 from the Government for the installation of a pump set in the well situated in those lands under Taluk L. No. 22 of 1967. She had earlier borrowed two loans from two creditors on the security of her lands. One of the creditors filed 0. S. 660 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif Court. Tiruchirapalli for recovery of the amount due to him. In execution of the decree obtained in that suit, the said lands were brought to sale and actually sold in court auction to one Shanmugharn Chettiar, subject to the Government loan of Rs. 1600/- and the said sale was duly confirmed. The auction, purchaser Shanmugharn Chettiar applied to the Revenue authorities for payment of the loan amount outstanding on the lands and by proceedings dated 2-1-1963, the auction purchaser was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2126.671in full discharge of the Government loan due by the appellant herein. Accordingly, the auction purchaser paid the sum on 5-1-1973. Meanwhile at the instance of the appellant herein, the District Court, Tiruchirapalli in C. M. A. 106 of 1961 set aside the court auction sale held in favour of Shanmugham Chettiar. The appellant thereafter filed E. A. 2007 of 1965 for restitution by way of redelivery of the lands and succeeded in getting possession of the Property from the auction purchaser. The result of this was that the ownership to the property of the appellant herein was restored. Inview of this, the District Revenue Officer on 15-10-1968 directed that,, the sum of Rs. 2126-67 remitted by the auction purchaser Shanmugham Chettiar towards loan No. 22 of 1967 should be refunded to him and that the security lands in S. Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of Ariyamangalam village should be attached and proceeded for the realisation of the loan amount from the appellant herein. Accordingly, action was taken for the repayment of the amount to Shanmughaiia Chettiar and for recovery of the amount due to the Government under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act 2 of 1864) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the appellant herein.

(3.) During the course of these Proceedings, the appellant took up the stand that the auction purchaser having paid the loan amount in her name, the loan should be taken to have been discharged and therefore the amount paid by the auction purchaser should not have been returned to him without reference to her and the loan amount having been discharged by payment, there was no liability on her part to pay the amount again to the Government. The Revenue authorities did not accept this stand of the appellant and therefore brought the lands for sale under the Act. On 2-6-1970, the lands were actually sold in favour Of the 4th respondent herein, the petitioner in W. P. 4576 of 1975. The appellant did not file an application to set aside the sale as per Section 37-A. However, she filed an application under Section 38 which was not successfied. The Revenue side was actually confirmed an 17-8-1972, by the 3rd respondent namely, the Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Tiruchirapalli. The appellant thereafter filed w. P. 2956 of 1972, to quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent confirming the revenue sale contending that the revenue sale itself was illegal. Subsequent to the filing of the said writ petition by the appellant herein, the Government Passed an order in G. O Ms. 620 Revenue dated 14-3-1975 on the report of the Board of Revenue to the ef7ect that as the appellant had disputed the liability to Pay the loan amount, the Collector without deciding the question, of liable, should not have he reacted the sale of the property in revenue auction and that therefore the writ petition filed by the appellant cannot be successfully defended. In this view, the Governnment had asked the Government Pleader to request the court to get aside the sale and remit the case to the Collector with a direction to decide the question of liability before invoking the Revenue Recovery Act. The 4th respondent herein thereafter filed W.P. P4576 of 1975 challenging the validity of the sold Government Order dated 14-34975. Ramanujam J. by the impugned judgment dismissed both the writ petitions The dismissal of W P4576- of 1975 has become final because no further proceedings have been instinction against the judgment of Ramanujan, J. It is as against the dismissal of W. P. 2956 of 1972, the owner of the land has filed the present appeal.