Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing reconveyance of respondent’s property purchased by the Government in revenue recovery proceedings and retained as bought-in-land based on the settlement of liability by the respondent under amnesty scheme. We have heard Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The respondent, an abkari contractor, fell in arrears of abkari dues to the State. 10.56 acres of rubber plantation belonging to the respondent was attached and sold in revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of a total amount of around Rs.36 lakhs. Since there was no purchaser for the property in the revenue sale, the recovery authority purchased the property under Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act for a consideration of rupee one. The revenue sale made on 2.3.1995 was confirmed on 24.8.1995. Physical possession of the property was take over by the revenue authorities on 8.12.1995. The mahazar indicates that the property taken over was mature rubber plantation of 8 years yield. Even though substantial income could have been obtained by tapping the rubber, the State could neither do it by themselves or through agencies, nor could the property be leased out to anyone for taking yield. Respondent’s effort to get back possession for taking yield was also not successful. Consequently the property remained unyielding to the State as well as to the respondent for several years. In between, the revenue authorities valued the property as on 13.11.2001 at Rs.8,44,800/-and the said amount was credited in the loan account but with effect from 24.8.1995 i.e. the date of confirmation of sale. During 1997 the property of the co-licencee was sold in recovery proceedings and an amount of Rs.5,90,200/- was adjusted towards the very same liability. However, this amount well as the notional value of 8,44,800/- for the bought-in-land of the respondent were credited and set off against interest liability. While so, the Government introduced Ext.P2 scheme of amnesty providing for settlement of Government dues which includes the abkari liability. Under the scheme, respondent was entitled to settle liability towards akbari dues by availing waiver of complete interest and by payment of principal amount. On petitioner’s application under Ext.P2, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise permitted settlement on payment of Rs.27,61,131/- which was the principal amount of liability. However, petitioner’s effort for reconveyance of property held by the Government as bought-in-land was unsuccessful and, therefore, petitioner approached this court with the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the W.P. directing the appellants to reconvey the bought-in-land to the respondent, against which this Writ Appeal is filed.

3. The amnesty scheme admittedly entitles the respondent for settlement of liability and it was in fact granted to him by waiving accrued interest of around Rs.58 lakhs and on collection of the principal amount of Rs.27,61,131/-. So far as revenue recovery proceedings are concerned, Ext.P2 amnesty scheme states as follows:

“Revenue recovery action initiated if any will be withdrawn in these cases and collection charges shall be waived.”

The question to be considered is whether withdrawal of revenue recovery action involves automatic cancellation of revenue sale made in recovery proceedings. Government Pleader submitted that once sale is made under Section 50 of the Act whereunder Government purchased the property for rupee one and when the sale is confirmed, it is like a sale made to a stranger which cannot be interfered through executive orders issued by the Government under amnesty scheme. Counsel for the respondent contended that the very purpose of settling liability under the amnesty scheme is to regain the lost property and so long as the purchaser is Government, Ext.P2 scheme entitles the respondent