ANGALAMMAI AMMAL Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Ramanujam, J., dated 20th November, 1975 rendered in Writ Petition No. 2956 of 1972. The learned Judge disposed of two writ petitions, one W.P. No 9255 of 1972 filed by the appellant herein and the other filed (K.V. Paramasivam Pillai v. Angalammai Ammal and 2 Ors. W.P. No. 4576 of 1975, by the fourth 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 Survey Nos. 163/1 and 163/3 of an extent of 3.20 and 0.20 acres respectively in Ariyamangalam village, Diruchirapalli taluk. She had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,600 on 21st October, 1957 from the Government for the installation of a pump set in the well situated in those lands under Taluk L. O. No. 22 of 1967. She had earlier borrowed two loans from two creditors on the security of her lands. One of the creditors filed O.S. No. 660 of 1958 on the file of the District Munsif's 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 Shanmugham Chettiar, subject to the Government loan of Rs. 1,600 and the said sale was duly confirmed The auction -purchaser Shanmugham Chettiar applied to the Revenue authorities for payment of the loan amount outstanding on the lands and by proceedings dated 2nd January, 1963, the auction -purchaser was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,126.67 in full discharge of the Government loan due by the appellant herein. Accordingly, the auction -purchaser paid the sum on 5th January, 1963. Meanwhile at the instance of the appellant herein, the District Court, Tiruchirapalli in C.M.A. No. 106 of 1961 set aside the Court -auction -sale held in favour of Shanmugham Chettiar. The appellant thereafter filed E. A. No 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 : In view of this, the District Revenue Officer on 15th October, 1968 directed that the sum of Rs. 2,126.67 remitted by the auction -purchaser Shanmugham Chettiar towards Loan No. 22 of 1967 should be refunded to him and that the security land 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 re -payment of the amount to Shanmugham Chettiar and for recovery of the amount due to the Government under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1964 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 2nd June, 1970 the lands were actually sold in favour of the fourth respondent herein, the petitioner in W.P. No. 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 successful. The revenue sale was actually confirmed on 17th August, 1972 by the third respondent, namely, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchirapalli. The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 2956 of 1972 to quash the proceedings of the third 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. No. 620 Revenue, dated 14th March, 1975 on the report of the Board of Revenue to the effect that as the appellant had disputed the liability to pay the loan amount, the Collector without deciding the question of liability, should not have directed 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 Government had asked the Pleader to request the Court to set 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 fourth respondent herein thereafter filed Writ Petition No 4576 of 1975 challenging the validity of the said Government Order dated 14th March, 1975. Ramanujam, J., by the impugned judgment dismissed both the writ petitions. The dismissal of W.P. No. 4576 of 1975 has become final because no further proceedings have been instituted against the judgment of Ramanujam, J. It is as against the dismissal of W.P. No. 2956 of 1972, the owner of the land has filed the present appeal.