JUDGMENT : Antony Dominic, J. The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to the validity of the sale of an immovable property, conducted under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act by respondents 1 to 3 for realisation of the amounts due to the 4th respondent bank. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner and his father were partners of a firm by name Rohini Oil Mills. Mortgaging 70 cents of land comprised in Survey No: 117 AA/1, Muthalamada Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District, belonging to the father of the petitioner, who was also a partner of the firm, a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) was availed of from the 4th respondent bank. Default was committed and revenue recovery proceedings at the instance of the 4th respondent were initiated by respondents 2 and 3. Finally, on 20.11.1997, the mortgaged property, which was already under attachment, was sold and was purchased by the government as bought in land. This fact is admitted by the official respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them. Subsequently, the sale was also confirmed on 31.05.2002. 3. Later, petitioner's father expired and the petitioner says that he inherited the assets of his father. Petitioner raised necessary amounts and paid the dues of the bank availing of the benefits of a One Time Settlement Scheme. Accordingly, the bank issued Ext.P1 receipt evidencing discharge of the liability due from the firm. Further Ext.P5 communication was also issued by the bank on 17.01.2009 requesting respondents 2 and 3 for discontinuance of recovery proceedings. This was issued in the meantime. It is also submitted that there were dues to the District Industries Centre and also to the Kerala Finance Corporation which were also discharged as per Exts.P2, P3 and P4. 4. Later, petitioner made Ext.P6 application to the 1st respondent on 24.11.2008 requesting to reconvey the land and that was rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 21.05.2009 on the ground that the application was filed beyond the prescribed 2-year-period from the date of sale. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P7 and also to set aside the sale that was conducted on 20.11.1997 in which the mortgaged property was purchased by the State as bought in land. 5. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P7 and also to set aside the sale that was conducted on 20.11.1997 in which the mortgaged property was purchased by the State as bought in land. 5. When the writ petition was taken up, the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was with respect to the validity of the sale conducted on 20.11.1997. According to him, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, when a sale is conducted by the State on behalf of an institution notified under Section 71 of the Act, the State could not purchase the property and for that reason, the sale itself is illegal. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi ( 2010 (1) KLT 913 ). It was also contended that since the property ought to have gone to the bank and as the liability due to the bank is already discharged, the petitioner is entitled to get the property reconveyed. 6. On the other hand, appearing for the respondents, the learned Government Pleader contended that such reconveyance is to be sought within 2 years from the date of sale and Ext.P6 application made by the petitioner for reconveyance of the property was belated, and therefore was rightly rejected. She also contended that the fact that liability has been discharged availing of the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme does not entitle the petitioner to claim that the revenue sale is automatically cancelled. This contention was sought to be substantiated relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. George Jacob ( 2010 (3) KLT 483 ). 7. I have considered the submissions made and in my view, the petitioner is entitled to such sale. 8. Admittedly, the revenue recovery proceedings which culminated in the sale that was conducted on 20.11.1997, were initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent bank from which loan was availed of. It is in that sale, the property in question was purchased by the State and the question is whether this was permissible. 8. Admittedly, the revenue recovery proceedings which culminated in the sale that was conducted on 20.11.1997, were initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent bank from which loan was availed of. It is in that sale, the property in question was purchased by the State and the question is whether this was permissible. This very issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi ( 2010 (1) KLT 913 ) where after referring to the provisions of Section 50(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act, the Division Bench held as follows: "Going by the scheme of the Act, we are of the view that when a notification is issued under Section 71, the provisions of the Act apply mutatis mutandis to the recovery of the amounts due to the said institution. If that be so, in Section 50(2), the words, 'on behalf of the Government' should be read as 'on behalf of the institution concerned'. Therefore, if there was no bidders, the Revenue Recovery Officer could have purchased the property on behalf of the second respondent Bank only. But, in this case, it was purchased on behalf of the State, for Re.1. So, the entire proceedings were vitiated." 9. Therefore, the State could not have purchased the property in the revenue recovery proceedings in question. As far as the liability due to the bank is concerned, admittedly, the liability has been fully discharged and that is evident from Exts.P1 and P5. In such circumstances, since I have found that the sale itself is illegal for the reasons mentioned above, the property should be restored to its owner. In the light of this finding, it is unnecessary for me to go into the correctness of Ext.P7 order or to the other contentions raised by the learned Government Pleader. 10. In such circumstances, I quash the sale conducted on 20.11.1997 and direct that the property will be restored to the legal heirs of the deceased father of the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above.