of the impugned order dated 25.11.2005 reveals that there are some corrections in the date of auction mentioned in the impugned order. Therefore, this Court has a doubt in respect of the adherence of the 30 days period as contemplated. This apart, the minors became majors and even during the relevant point of time, the partition deed was executed pertains to majors as well as the minors. Now, the minors became majors. However, in respect of the majors, even at that point of time, the respondents are empowered to initiate action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. The fact remains that the impugned order was issued on 25.11.2005 and 16 years lapsed. The conditional interim order granted in the Second Appeal was also not in force and therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents to proceed with action by following the procedures contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. On account of efflux of time, the notice issued in the year 2005 cannot be proceeded with and therefore, the respondents have to issue a fresh notice for the purpose of recovery of arrears of revenue dues. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised an objection that the calculation made in the impugned order regarding the arrears of revenue is incorrect. Thus, the respondents are bound to calculate the arrears of revenue to be recovered in a proper manner and thereafter, issue fresh notice for recovery of revenue from the parties concerned. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not established any ground for the purpose of quashing of impugned auction notice and further the impugned auction notice issued in the year 2005 cannot be proceeded at this length on time, the respondents are bound to issue a fresh auction notice for the purpose of recovery of arrears of revenue by following the procedures contemplated.
