Petitioner incurred liability towards KGST and CST. Recovery steps were taken under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The property of the petitioner was attached and as there were no bidders, it was purchased by the Government in the sale held on 110.1995. The sale came to be confirmed on 21.1996. Petitioner made application for reconveyance expressing his willingness to remit the entire amount. The application was made on 27.1996. The entire amount came to be paid on 29.7.1996. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued Ext.P1 letter indicating that as the payment has come from the petitioner within two years, there is no objection to reconvey the land. The Officer in Ext.P1 referred to G.O. dated 23.1996. According to petitioner, petitioner continued in possession. Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C). No.4668/08 and Ext.P3 Judgment was delivered therein. The Court directed that if the petitioner files representation and expresses his willingness to proceed under Ext.P2 therein, the District Collector will look into the matter and take a decision in accordance with Ext.P2 Government Order. It is also stated that if there are other amounts to be remitted in terms of the order, it shall be done. Ext.P4 is the decision of the District Collector. Therein, the District Collector has ordered that in terms of G.O. dated 23.1996, the petitioner has to pay the market value. Petitioner seeks a declaration that Ext.P4 is unsustainable and also seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4. A direction is sought to reconvey the petitioners property which is covered by Exts.P1 and P4 orders within a time.

2. A Counter Affidavit is filed. Therein, the facts relating to the dates of the sale, confirmation and filing of the application for reconveyance and payment of the amount on 29.7.1996 are not disputed. However, reliance is placed only on Clause 3(2) of the G.O. dated 23.1996. It is stated that for all sales after 11.1983 the property owners are liable to pay the market value.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is necessary to refer to the history of the conferment of right to reconveyance. Under Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, should there be no bidders on the date to which the sale stands adjourned for lack of bidders, it is open to the State to bid for the property at Re.1/= and the State becomes the absolute owner of the property thereunder. However, apparently, requests came to be made for reconveyance upon payment of the entire arrears. Government passed orders. Accordingly, Ext.P5 G.O. dated 30.6.1965 came to be issued. Taking note of the absence of the uniformity in the procedure for taking possession and utilisation of the lands covered by Section 50 and in the matter of the ultimate disposal, it is noted that there is a need for a unified procedure. It is necessary to notice Clause 4(3) along with the Note. It reads as follows:

"Clause 4: Disposal of bought in lands:

Bought in lands will be disposed of in order of priority given below:-

(iii) the land will be reconveyed to the defaulter or his undisputed heir on payment of arrears of public revenue including land tax from the year in which the land was bought in to the year of reconveyance, interest on arrears, cost of process etc. The Collectors will sanction the reconveyance of bought-in-lands to the original owners or their undisputed heirs.

Note: The reconveyance of bought in land to the original owner will be considered only if applied for within one year from the date of confirmation of the sale. Applications for reconveyance received after the expiry of one year will not be considered either by the District Collector or by the Government."

Still later, the Government issued Ext.P6 GO dated 9.2.1968. As per the same, essentially the time to request for reconveyance was extended from one year to two years. It appears that there was ano