IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the petitioner was not entitled to re-conveyance based on statutory provisions and previous judgments, the court exercised its discretionary power under Article 226 to order re-conveyance on equitable grounds, considering the settlement of liability and the principles of fairness and undue enrichment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner is one of the persons who offered Solvency Certificate with respect to her immovable property having an extent of 25 cents situated in Survey No.518/5 of Neezhoor Village in support of the bidding of Arrack shop Nos.26, 30-33 of Ettumanoor range. The bidders did not pay the entire kist amount, and consequently there occurred a liability of Rs.14,18,850/-together with interest thereon to the Excise Department. It is the case of the petitioner that she and other persons who gave Solvency Certificate were allowed to clear the liability by remitting Rs.10,64,138/-in four equal monthly installments under Amnesty scheme. According to the petitioner, she along with others paid the first instalment of Rs.2,66,035/-and the balance could not be paid within time. She and others approached this Court and this Court as per Exhibit P1 judgment directed the Excise Commissioner, Kottayam to consider the request made by them, and on the basis of such request, they were allowed to remit the balance amount and interest and the same amounting to Rs.9,29,793/-was paid by them on 29.09.2009 as per Exhibit P2 Receipt. Thus the entire liability was cleared by the petitioner and other persons who gave Solvency Certificate. In the meantime, the property of the petitioner was proceeded against and the same was purchased by the Government for Re.1/-on 19.04.2004. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the purchase of the property by the Government, the property had been still remaining in the possession of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Village Officer attempted to take possession of the property on the instruction of the Tahsildar on the strength of the purchase of the property by the Government, and hence the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondent to return the property of the petitioner purchased by the Government. The Petitioner relies on Ext.P3 judgment wherein the Division Bench of this Court ordered the Government to reconvey the property bid by it RR proceedings on receipt of Rs.1,00,000/-considering it as the reasonable price for the land, after settlement of the liability in Amnesty Scheme. The Petitioner relies on Ext.P4 and P5 Government Orders on the ground that it permit re conveyance of property on payment of the arrears, interest and collection charges.

2. This writ petition was filed on 05.02.2014, and this Court granted interim order dated 06.02.2014, not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the property till 18/02/2014. The said interim order was extended from time to time, and it was extended until further orders on 09.10.2014.

3. The Respondent No.4/Tahsildar filed a Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the writ petition. It is admitted in the Counter Affidavit that the defaulters including the petitioner, settled the arrears by remitting an amount of Rs.9,29,793/-. But since the amount is not paid within the time limit prescribed in Exhibits P4 and P5 Government Orders, the petitioner is not entitled to get re-conveyance of her property.

4. Heard Sri.Abraham Mathew Vettoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader Smt.K.B.Sony who appeared for the respondents.

5. It is clear from the pleadings that the property of the petitioner was purchased by the Government in auction on 19.04.2004, and that the last payment under Amnesty Scheme was paid by the petitioner and other defaulters on 29.09.2009. Hence the petitioner has not cleared the liability within 5 years as provided in Exhibits P4 and P5 Government Orders. Petitioner has not made any Application for reconveyance of property in accordance with Ext.P4 and P5 Government Orders. That apart, Exhibit P4 Government Order is dated 01.03.2013, and Exhibit P5 Government Order is dated 03.05.2013, and hence those Government Orders are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. The Petitioner paid the amount not as per those Government Orders. Petitioner