The petitioner was an assessee for agricultural income tax and sales tax. Consequent to the default to pay the tax demanded, the petitioner's land was put in auction. The State purchased the land having an extent of 3.73 in Survey No.108/1 and 109/1 of Varanagad Village under Section 50 of Revenue Recovery Act as bought in land on 27.6.1985. The petitioner remitted the entire amount due under the Assessment order on 18.12.2003. The petitioner initiated proceedings for re-conveyance of the land. The District Collector refused to the request of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to remit the current market value of the land as contemplated in Government Order No.(MS No.196/ 96 RD 22/91. The petitioner, aggrieved by the direction of the District Collector approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.34407/2003. This Court directed the petitioner to remit 50%. The petitioner withdrew the writ petition with liberty. The issue in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for re-conveyance of the land without paying the market value of the land.

2. The Government order regarding the re-conveyance of the bought in land dated 22.3.1996 is produced along with the memo by the Government order. The relevant Government Order reads as follows:

"In cases wherein the date of sale confirmation of bought-in-land is on or after 01.11.1983, the requests for re- conveyance from the Original owner or his undisputed heirs will be allowed provided the current market value of the land is also remitted. Six months time from the date of issue of this order will be allowed for submitting applications for the purpose and after that date no such applications will be entertained under any circumstances."

3. If the land is exclusively vested with the Government, certainly, the re-conveyance can be only based on the aforesaid Government Order. However, the question emerges in view of the fact that the petitioner was allowed to discharge the liability in the year 2003 by remitting the entire amount due under the Government Order. Therefore, the question, in such circumstances is whether the Government Order as such would apply or not.

4. The Government Order would apply if the petitioner seeks the re-conveyance of the land, which was purchased by the State in terms of Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act based on the conditions enumerated therein. The Government Order does not indicate the issue for re-conveyance of the land when the debtor has been allowed to discharge his debt, otherwise than in the mode as prescribed in the Government Order. Therefore, the only point, which has to be considered by this Court is the legal effect is of the payment effected by the debtor.

5. The restitutional claim would arise against the public authorities or State in numerous circumstances. One of such circumstances is on equitable ground. To allow any claim based on equitable ground, the Court has to look around the conduct of the parties in relation to the transaction. Therefore, the foremost point to consider is the reason for the Government to allow the debtor to discharge his liability.

6. When a sale would extinguish the liability of the debtor, any payment thereafter made towards the discharge of the liability and accepted by the creditor, certainly has to be treated as a separate transaction to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.

7. Although there is a view that an estoppel can operate only as a shield not as a sword, there is an exceptional type, which is called equitable estoppel. This type of estoppel in fact was relied upon by the parties to prefer a claim. The extended version of the equitable estoppel is also known as promisory estoppel when a party has acted upon a promise of another.

House of Lord in Ramsden vs. Dyson 1866 LR I HL 129, 170 explains the above Rules as follows:

"If a man, under a verbal agreement with a landlord for a certain interest in land, or, what amounts to the same thing under an expectation, created or