JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P9 order issued by the Government in the Revenue (H) Department rejecting a request made by the petitioner for reconveyance of land belonging to the petitioner (12 cents with residential house) which was purchased by the Government as bought-in-land under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the RR Act). It is stated in Ext.P9 that, purchase by the Government was on 30.3.1989 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the Government on 3.9.1989. A reading of Ext.P9 will show that the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the request was made fifteen (15) years after the land was purchased by the Government under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the RR Act and on the ground that no request for reconveyance of land will be considered after a period of five (5) years from the date on which the sale is confirmed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner became aware of the fact that the RR proceedings initiated against the petitioner had culminated in the purchase of land by the Government under the provisions of Section 50 of RR Act only in the year 2004. It is submitted that, immediately, the petitioner had moved the Government by filing Ext.P3. It is submitted that, thereafter, on the basis of directions issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner was heard by the Government and Ext.P9 order was issued. It is submitted that purchase by the Government, in the facts of the present case, is vitiated in the light of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi; 2010(1)KLT 913. It is submitted that revenue recovery proceedings in this case were to recover amounts due to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and going by the law laid down in Subaida Beevi (supra) the Government could not have purchased the land and the land could have been purchased only in the name of the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board.

3. The learned Government Pleader refers to the facts and circumstances in the case and also to the counter affidavit filed to contend that even if the contention of the petitioner that the issue stands covered in his favour by the judgment in Subaida Beevi (supra) is accepted, it must be noted that the sale in question was held on 30.3.1989 and the sale was confirmed on 3.9.1989. It is submitted that a belated challenge to the sale, i.e. after nearly 15 years, could not have been entertained at the instance of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is therefore not entitled to any relief in the matter.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board would submit that amounts are still due to the Board. It is submitted that since the land was purchased in the name of the Government, the Board is not benefited and the liability of the petitioner still remains, though the property of the petitioner has been purchased by the Government in the Revenue Recovery proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire amounts due to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board together with any interest till today and on such condition and by applying the law laid down by the Division Bench in Subaida Beevi (supra), the proceedings culminating in the purchase of the land by the Government may be set aside. It is also submitted that though the land was purchased by the Government as early as in the year 1989, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the said land.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. A reading of the j