Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The respondents 1 to 4 in the Writ Petition are the appellants. The writ petitioner is the first respondent. The point that arises for decision in this Writ Appeal is whether, in the absence of a purchaser for a property, put to sale under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for short, 'the Act'), at the instance of an institution covered by the notification issued under Section 71 thereof, it can be purchased by the Government, as provided under Section 50 (2) of the Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The first respondent and her husband purchased certain properties from Smt.N.K.Bharathi and her father. The said properties included the 5 cents of property, which is involved in this case. The first respondent's husband, later settled his rights in the said 5 cents of property, in favour of the first respondent and she became the absolute owner of the said property.

3. Smt.Bharathy had availed a loan from the second respondent Bank, mortgaging the aforementioned 5 cents of property. Since she defaulted in repaying the loan, the Bank moved the revenue recovery officials and the property was put to sale. Since there were no purchasers for the property, the Revenue Recovery Officer purchased the property under Section 50(2)(i) of the Act, on 22.5.1989, for one rupee. The sale of the property in favour of the State was confirmed on 1.9.1989. The sale of the property by Smt.Bharathy in favour of the first respondent and her husband took place on 6.7.1995. Thereafter, from the sale consideration, Smt.Bharathy paid the entire amount due to the Bank, to the revenue recovery officials, as evident from Ext.P5 receipt dated 28.6.1995. Earlier, she moved the District Collector, Alappuzha, on 20.3.1994, for release of the property, but she was informed by Ext. R1(a) that since the time limit of two years was already over, the property cannot be re-conveyed. Later, the first respondent moved the District Collector for re-conveyance of the land. When the said attempt failed, she moved under the Right to Information Act and she was informed by Ext.P8 dated 3.4.2009 that the aforementioned 5 cents of land was vested in the State Government as 'bought-in- land'.

4. The Bank received the entire amounts due to it and it also issued Ext.P6 clearance certificate dated 20.4.2009 that no amount is due to it from Smt.Bharathy. In the above background, the Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent, challenging Ext.P10, which is an order of the Sub Collector, Chengannur dated 1.9.1989, confirming the sale of the property in favour of the State, for Re.1. The first respondent obtained a copy of the said order, under the Right to Information Act, along with Ext.P8 dated 3.4.2009.In the Writ Petition, she also prayed for consequential reliefs.

5. The first respondent in the Writ Petition, who is the first appellant herein, filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext. R1(a) dated18.12.1995 was produced. It was a communication issued by the District Collector, Alappuzha, to Smt.Bharathy, stating that the 5 cents of land had been purchased by the State as 'bought-in-land' and the same vested in the Government. Relying on Section 50 of the Act, the first appellant supported the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, allowed the Writ Petition. The learned Judge took the view that in so far as the revenue recovery proceedings initiated on the requisition of an institution notified under Section 71 of the Act are concerned, Section 50(2) has no application. This view was taken, relying on an earlier judgment of this Court, rendered by the very same learned Judge, in W.P.(C) No.8877/2009 dated 30.7.1999, reported in Ayisha Teacher v. District Collector (2009(4) KLT 53). The learned Judge, quashed Ext.P10 and directed to release the property concerned to the first respondent/wr