JUDGMENT : T.R. RAVI, J. 1. Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are - Benjamin Franklin the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the 2nd respondent to return an extent of 10 acres of property situated in Sholayur Village in Sy. No. 1474/2, which had been taken over as bought-in land on 25.10.2000, after accepting Rs. 5,81,000/- towards the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund dues. Heard Senior Advocate Smt. Sumathi Dandapani instructed by Advocate Sri Millu Dandapani on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Mohammed Anzar K.J. Special Government Pleader (Revenue) on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner had been involved in abkari business. He had incurred dues towards Abkari Workers Welfare Fund during the year 1995-96 to the tune of Rs. 1,37,088/- as can be seen from Ext.P2 information received by the petitioner from the Taluk Office, Mannarkkad. On an allegation that the petitioner was also liable to the Sales Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 1,71,062/- with interest, the respondents had invoked revenue recovery proceedings. The proceedings culminated in sale of 10 Acres of property belonging to the petitioner. Since there were no sufficient bidders, the property was taken over as a bought-in land on 25.10.2000. The auction sale procedure was completed on 20.03.2001. The petitioner had approached the authorities on 16.6.2001 requesting for return of the bought-in land. However, no further steps appears to have been taken for quite a long time. On 01.10.2011, the respondents issued Ext.P3 Government order wherein it was ordered that, if the petitioner pays the amounts due towards sales tax, Abkari Workers Welfare Fund, the interest due till date and the collection charges and other expenses, the bought-in land can be returned to the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner approached the authorities for details of the amounts due. The Public Information Officer and Tahsildar attached to the Taluk Office, Mannarkkad, by Ext.P2 dated 23.4.2012, informed the petitioner that the principal amount and interest due towards the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund was Rs. 1,37,088/- and Rs. 3,37,452/- respectively and that the principal amount and interest due towards the sale tax was Rs.1,71,062/- and Rs.4,90,157/- in the Mannarkkad Division and Rs. 85,292/- and Rs. 4,265/- in the Ottappalam Division respectively. 1,37,088/- and Rs. 3,37,452/- respectively and that the principal amount and interest due towards the sale tax was Rs.1,71,062/- and Rs.4,90,157/- in the Mannarkkad Division and Rs. 85,292/- and Rs. 4,265/- in the Ottappalam Division respectively. Ext.P2 also shows that a sum of more than Rs. 2 lakhs was due towards further interest. According to the petitioner, the amounts shown in Ext.P2 were not correct. 3. The Welfare Fund Inspector of the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board had by Ext.P1 letter dated 27.9.2016 informed the petitioner that the amount due towards the fund as on that date was Rs. 10,18,087/-. The petitioner requested the authorities to inform the correct amount, since according to him the amounts stated in Ext.P1 was also wrong. Thereafter by Ext.P5 letter dated 4.11.2016, the Welfare Fund Inspector informed the petitioner that the amount due towards the fund along with interest was only Rs. 5,54,045/-. 4. The petitioner has a case that the sale was conducted on the basis of a wrong calculation of the arrears due to the respondents and that, as a matter of fact, no amount was due towards sales tax. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the District Collector, Palakkad was informed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Mannarkkad, by letter dated 17.9.2008 and 20.10.2013 that the petitioner has no dues towards sales tax. It is also stated that the only amount due is the amount stated in Ext.P5 dated 04.11.2016 with interest till date. That is to say, that the revenue sale conducted was on the basis of a wrong calculation of the actual amounts due from the petitioner. However, it cannot be stated that at the time of the sale no amounts were due from the petitioner. 5. On receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner sent a cheque for Rs. 5,81,900/- on 15.01.2017. The respondents did not accept the cheque for the reason that as per Condition No. 4 in G.O. (MS) No. 76/13/Rev. dated 01.03.2013, it had been decided by the Government that the bought-in land need not be returned to any person who is applying after five years. The fact that the cheque was returned is also admitted in the counter affidavit. 6. dated 01.03.2013, it had been decided by the Government that the bought-in land need not be returned to any person who is applying after five years. The fact that the cheque was returned is also admitted in the counter affidavit. 6. What transpires from the facts stated above is that, the State had conducted a revenue sale for recovery of amounts which were due towards Kerala Abkari Welfare Fund arrears and amounts which were not actually due towards sales tax arrears, clubbing both the amounts together as arrears due from the petitioner to the Government. In effect, what has been done is to take over 10 Acres of property towards liability of Rs. 1,37,088/- which occurred during the financial year 1995-96. At the time when the sale was conducted in the year 2000, what would have accrued is only the interest for four years on the sum of Rs. 1,37,088/-. Even though the petitioner had initiated steps for return of the bought-in land as early as on 15.06.2001, as admitted in Ext.P3, the actual amount due was informed to the petitioner only on 04.11.2016 as per Ext.P5. The only obvious conclusion possible is that there is material irregularity in the conduct of the sale, primarily since there is want of proper notice under Section 34 as also under Section 49(2)(iv) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Admittedly, the amount of public revenue due on land shown in the notice is incorrect and it takes in amounts which are not actually due. 7. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P1 which quantified the amount due at more than Rs. 10 lakhs, for a direction to deduct the amounts received in auction of the usufructs of the quantity as seen in Ext.P4 of the actual amount due from the petitioner, for a direction to the respondents to charge only a reasonable interest on the amount of Rs. 1,37,088/- which was due in 1995-96, for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to amounts collected from auction of the usufructs as detailed in Ext.P4 and for other reliefs. Later, by way of an amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to return an extent of 10 acres of property situated in Sholayur village in Sy. Later, by way of an amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the 2nd respondent to return an extent of 10 acres of property situated in Sholayur village in Sy. No. 1474/2, which had been taken over as bought-in land on 25.10.2000, after accepting Rs. 5,81,000/- towards the Abkari Workers Welfare Fund dues. After the issuance of Ext.P5, the petitioner, on 26.08.2019, filed I.A. No. 1 of 2019 praying for a direction to the respondents to accept the amount mentioned in Ext.P5 and the interest which had accrued on that amount and to return the land which is taken over as bought-in land. It is only after the said petition was filed, that the respondents placed on record the counter affidavit, wherein it is admitted that no amounts were due from the petitioner towards sales tax. Even though I.A. No. 1 of 2019 was filed only in 2019, the petitioner had actually made such a submission earlier, as can be seen from the affidavit of I.A. No. 3187 of 2017 along with which Ext.P5 was placed on record. The submission therein was that since the petitioner had already issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 5,81,900/- pursuant to Ext.P5, the Tahslidar may be directed to encash the amount, to repay the amount received on auction of usufructs and to return the property taken over as bought-in land. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decisions of 3 Division Benches of this Court, in State of Kerala and Others vs. George Jacob, 2010 (3) KLT 483 , in Chandrasekharan vs. State of Kerala, 2018 (3) KLT 562 and the judgment in S. Ashok Kumar vs. State of Kerala and Others in Writ Appeal No. 1019 of 2018, in support of her contentions. The Special Government Pleader also relied on the decision in Chandrasekharan (supra). The Special Government Pleader also relied on the decision in Chandrasekharan (supra). Apart from that, he also relied on the decisions in District Collector vs. Subaida Beevi, 2010 (1) KLT 913 and the judgment of a learned Single judge in W.P. (C) No. 33704 of 2011, to contend that even though this Court has on earlier occasions directed re-conveyance of bought-in lands, the facts of the case on hand do not warrant the same, since even after providing an opportunity to the petitioner as per Ext.P3 as early as in 2011 to get re-conveyance, the petitioner did not take it. 9. In George Jacob (supra) the Court was concerned with the re-conveyance of 10.56 acres of rubber plantation, which was taken over as bought-in-land under Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act. In the said case the arrears was around Rs. 36 lakhs. The sale took place in 1995. In 2001, the revenue authorities valued the property at Rs. 8,44,800/- and credited the same to the defaulters account with effect from 24.8.95. In 1997, the property of the co-licensee was also brought to sale and a sum of Rs. 5,90,200/- was adjusted towards the very same liability, but set off against the interest which was overdue. While so, the Government introduced a scheme of amnesty, providing for settlement of Government dues, which included abkari liability. On the petitioner’s application, he was permitted to settle the liability on payment of Rs. 27,61,131/- which was the principal amount. When the petitioner’s effort for re-conveyance did not succeed, he filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ petition directing the Government to re-convey the bought-in-land to the petitioner. In the appeal filed by the State, the Division bench disagreed with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was entitled to re-conveyance of the bought-in-land, and held that unless the Amnesty Scheme provided for re-conveyance of property which had been taken over by the Government as bought-in-land, the Court cannot direct re-conveyance. However, the Division bench accepted the contention of the defaulter that relief could be granted to him on equitable grounds. The Division Bench allowed the appeal vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but on the principles of equity allowed the defaulter to settle the balance payable and get re-conveyance of the property. 10. However, the Division bench accepted the contention of the defaulter that relief could be granted to him on equitable grounds. The Division Bench allowed the appeal vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but on the principles of equity allowed the defaulter to settle the balance payable and get re-conveyance of the property. 10. In Subaida Beevi (supra) this Court was concerned with the question whether Section 50(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act will apply to recovery proceedings instituted on behalf of an institution covered by notification under Section 71. The recovery proceedings had been initiated for recovery of amounts due to a Bank. The learned Single Judge held that Section 50(2) has no application for recovery of amounts due to a Bank. The State took the matter in appeal. The Division Bench of this Court held that when a notification is issued under Section 71, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act will apply mutatis mutandis to the recovery proceedings of such institution and that the words on behalf of the Government should be read as on behalf of the institution concerned. Since in the case before the Division Bench, the land was purchased on behalf of the State for Re. 1/- instead of purchasing the property on behalf of the requisitioning authority, the Division Bench held that the entire proceedings were vitiated, that the quashing of the proceedings and the directions issued by the learned Single judge is sustained for a different reasoning, and, dismissed the appeal filed by the State. 11. In W.P. (C) No. 33704 of 2011, revenue recovery was initiated for recovery of arrears due towards Abkari Workers Welfare Fund, Sales tax and Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. The demands from three requisitioning authorities were clubbed together and revenue sale was conducted. The sale conducted on 20.12.1999 in favour of the State was confirmed only on 18.8.2007. In the meanwhile, certain amounts had been remitted in 1999 and 2000 towards the dues. The sale was confirmed without noticing the payments. An application made for availing the Amnesty Scheme was rejected on the ground that sale has already taken place. The sale conducted on 20.12.1999 in favour of the State was confirmed only on 18.8.2007. In the meanwhile, certain amounts had been remitted in 1999 and 2000 towards the dues. The sale was confirmed without noticing the payments. An application made for availing the Amnesty Scheme was rejected on the ground that sale has already taken place. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment in Subaida Beevi (supra) and the judgment in Thirumalaiswamy M. vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2012 (2) KHC 402 and set aside the sale for the reason that the purchase ought to have been on behalf of the requisitioning authorities, that confirmation of sale was done after 7 years without noticing subsequent payments, and that there was no satisfactory evidence to hold that there was prior notice of sale. The petitioner before the Court was permitted to file a fresh application for extending Amnesty Scheme and to pay the balance amount due towards the Abkari Workers Welfare fund and Toddy Workers Welfare fund. The District Collector was directed to restore possession on receipt of a deposit of Rs. 20 lakhs. 12. In Chandrasekharan (supra) the sale was conducted for arrears of sales tax, which fell due during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The sale was conducted while an appeal filed against the assessment order was pending. After the confirmation of the sale, the appeals filed by the assessee against the assessment order was allowed, setting aside the assessment orders and remitting the matter to the assessment officer for modification and consequential orders. The assessment orders were modified and the assessee was permitted to avail the Amnesty Scheme, consequently, withdrawing the Revenue Recovery requisition. Thereafter, the assessee approached the District Collector for return of the land, but the request was rejected, saying that the mere fact that the defaulter has been permitted to pay off the dues under Amnesty Scheme does not entitle him to claim re-conveyance. The defaulter approached this Court in a Writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, holding that once the sale is confirmed in favour of the Government, it is not possible to re-convey the land, merely because the liability has been settled. The petitioner filed appeal. The Division Bench of this Court, after noticing the facts, found that it was not the case regarding re-conveyance of bough-tin-land. The petitioner filed appeal. The Division Bench of this Court, after noticing the facts, found that it was not the case regarding re-conveyance of bough-tin-land. According to the Division Bench, it was a case where the sale itself has to fail as the substratum for the action had been eroded, when the assessment order itself was set aside in appeal. The Court held that it was really a case of restitution whereby the original owner has to be restored to his original position. In paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Division bench observed as follows: “27. The power of restitution of this Court is edifice on the acme principles of justice, equity and fair play and wherever it becomes necessary, this Court would not refrain from passing orders to ensure that litigants, who are illegally and unfairly divested of their properties, are restituted appropriately so that the allegation of unjust enrichment is not perpetrated....” 13. In W.A. No. 1019 of 2018, the appellant before the Division Bench had approached the Revenue Recovery Authority for the conveyance of bought-in-land. The revenue authorities directed him to remit market value for re-conveyance of the property. The learned Single Judge directed deposit of the market value, together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within 6 months and further directed the revenue authority to re-convey the property on such remittance. The direction was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench. The appellant contended that the proceedings were initiated for sales tax arrears, the assessment of which was set aside in appeal and remanded for fresh consideration. The subsequent assessment was settled by the appellant under Amnesty Scheme by depositing the entire amount and reconveyance was sought thereafter. It was a case where the appellant was still in occupation of the residential building since the Government had not taken any steps to take over the property. After going through the entire Revenue Recovery process initiated, on facts, the Division Bench found that the case did not warrant any revocation of the bought-in-land proceedings, but however invoking the equitable jurisdiction, the appellant was granted time to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,44,743/- with a condition that, if the sum is not deposited, the bought-in-land proceedings will be confirmed. 14. 3,44,743/- with a condition that, if the sum is not deposited, the bought-in-land proceedings will be confirmed. 14. It can be seen from the various decisions, that this Court has been granting relief to persons who have lost their properties in revenue sale where Government is the purchaser by applying the principles of equity. Coming to the question of delay raised by the Senior Government Pleader, it is well settled that a person seeking equity should not be sleeping over his rights as the maxim “Vigilantibus, et non dormientibus jura subveniunt” says. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, speaking for a Three Judge Bench of the apex court said in the decision in Raja Jagdambika Pratap Narain Singh vs. CBDT, (1975) 4 SCC 578 , the plea based on justice, equity and good conscience is no good alibi in expiation of the sin of gross delay in coming to the High Court. However, the said principle cannot be applied to the case on hand since the petitioner had approached the authorities immediately after the sale, but the authorities contributed to the delay to a large extent and informed the petitioner of the amount that has to deposited for getting re-conveyance only in November, 2016 and the writ petition was filed on 8.11.2016. 15. The following principles of law emerge from the above decisions: (a) Where the facts warrant the exercise of the equity jurisdiction, it is open to the Court to exercise such jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which takes within its ambit justice, equity and good conscience and pass such orders in equity in favour of the party who is entitled to it. (b) Where land has been taken over as bought-in-land by the Government on the basis of a sale, which was not conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Revenue Recovery Act, the sale itself being invalid, it is open to the Court to direct the Government to restore the property to the original owner. (c) Where are substratum for the Revenue Recovery proceedings no longer exists, it is open to the Court to apply the principles of restitution and put the owner back in possession of the property. (c) Where are substratum for the Revenue Recovery proceedings no longer exists, it is open to the Court to apply the principles of restitution and put the owner back in possession of the property. (d) Where the sale is initiated for amounts due to different requisitioning authorities notified under Section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, the purchase has to be on behalf of such requisitioning authorities and not on behalf of the State. A purchase made on behalf of the State is vitiated. 16. Applying the above principles to the case on hand, admittedly, the sale was conducted on the basis of a notice showing arrears of Abkari Workers Welfare Fund and Sales tax. It is later on admitted that there were no sales tax dues actually pending from the petitioner. That is to say, there was no proper notice as envisaged under Section 34 as also under Section 49(2)(iv) of the Revenue Recovery Act prior to the sale and the sale was for that very reason vitiated. It is admitted that the purchase was made on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of the requisitioning authority. On that ground also, the sale was vitiated. An application for re-conveyance of the bought-in land had been made within 3 months from the confirmation of the sale. It is also a fact that the Government decided in principle to return the bought-in land as per Exhibit P3. Even though Exhibit P3 was issued in 2011, admittedly, the actual amount of arrears was made known to the petitioner only as per Exhibit P5 on 4.11.2016. It is also admitted that on receipt of Exhibit P5, the petitioner had tendered a cheque for an amount more than what is stated in Exhibit P5 but the same was returned by the respondents stating that a Government order issued in 2013 does not permit the State to re-convey bought-in-land after the expiry of 5 years from the sale. It is in the above background that the application filed by the petitioner pending the writ petition seeking a direction to return the property by accepting the tender of the amount due as per Exhibit P5, along with reasonable interest, has to be considered. 17. It is in the above background that the application filed by the petitioner pending the writ petition seeking a direction to return the property by accepting the tender of the amount due as per Exhibit P5, along with reasonable interest, has to be considered. 17. Apart from the fact that the sale has to be held to be invalid since the same has been completed without following the procedure prescribed by law, even on the principles of equity, it is a case coming within the remedy of “rescission.” Dealing with the principle, it has been stated in 31st Edition of “Snell's Equity” in paragraph 13-01 in Chapter 13 as follows: “13-01 - Nature - The term “rescission” is capable of numerous meanings. In this text it refers to the nonconsensual un-picking of a transaction: the setting-aside of the agreement and the restoration of the parties (more or less) to the position they would have been in had the transaction never been made. There are two types of circumstance in which rescission in this sense will be available: cases where the making of the transaction was procured by a wrongful misrepresentation or duress (where, historically, a right to rescind might exist at common law) and certain other cases where equity would direct the rescission of a transaction on the basis that it was improperly procured. Since both types of circumstance must have obtained at the time of the transaction itself, it follows that a rescindable transaction is liable to be set aside from its inception.” 18. While holding that the sale is vitiated, it cannot be forgotten that the petitioner has liabilities to the Government. In my view, equity requires that the petitioner is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 5,54,045/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% from 4.11.2016 to 29.8.2019, and that on receipt of the same the respondents return possession of the land taken possession as bought-in land from the petitioner. 19. The Writ petition is hence disposed of with the following directions: (i) It is declared that the proceedings under Section 50(2), which culminated in the taking over of the petitioner’s lands as bought-in-land on behalf of the State is vitiated in the light of the law laid down in Subaida Beevi (supra) and Chandrasekharan (supra). (ii) The respondents are directed to restore the lands to the petitioner after receiving a sum of Rs. (ii) The respondents are directed to restore the lands to the petitioner after receiving a sum of Rs. 5,54,045/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 4.11.2016 to 29.8.2019. (iii) The petitioner will not be entitled to claim the value of the usufructs from the land, which had been received during the period when the land was in the custody of the State. (iv) The petitioner shall deposit the amount stated in direction (ii) above within 3 months from today and on receipt of the amount, the respondents shall restore the property to the petitioner within 2 weeks therefrom. (v) On completion of the acts directed as above, the petitioner may move the appropriate authorities to get the revenue records corrected regarding his right over the properties in question. 20. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.