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. 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 has not made any Application for re-conveyance. Hence I find that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of Exhibits P4 and P5 Government Orders. 6. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P3 judgment by which this Court ordered re-conveyance of an extent of 74.05 cents of land on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-considering it as reasonable price for the land. Petitioner has not made any Application for re-conveyance. Hence I find that the petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of Exhibits P4 and P5 Government Orders. 6. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P3 judgment by which this Court ordered re-conveyance of an extent of 74.05 cents of land on payment of Rs.1,00,000/-considering it as reasonable price for the land. In Exhibit P3 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court followed the judgment in W.A.No.1742 of 2009 (State of Kerala & Others V.George Jacob 2010(3) KHC 381 ) in which it is held that property once sold in revenue recovery proceedings, whether to the State or to other person is not affected, and Amnesty Scheme does not provide for reversal of those proceedings or restoration of property. The Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment expressed that the Writ Appeal filed by the State has to be allowed holding that Amnesty Scheme as such does not entitle the respondent therein for restoration of property. But the Division Bench in Ext.P3 judgment exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directed the Government to re-convey the land on remittance of Rs.1,00,000/-which is considered as reasonable price for the land. The Division Bench adopted such course since the same course was adopted in W.A.No.1742 of 2009 exercising discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a Single Bench decision of this Court in Savithammal R v. Thahsildar, Udumbanchola and other 2016 (3) KHC 335 in which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition directing re-conveyance of the property purchased by the Government in revenue recovery proceedings at the expense of the petitioner relying on the principles of proprietary estoppel on settlement of the dues. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader cited two other Single Bench decisions namely Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala 2012(2) KLT 164 and Chandrasekharan C K v. State of Kerala and others 2016(3) KLT 63 holding that settlement of liability under Amnesty scheme will not entitle the defaulter to claim re-conveyance of the bought in land. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader cited two other Single Bench decisions namely Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala 2012(2) KLT 164 and Chandrasekharan C K v. State of Kerala and others 2016(3) KLT 63 holding that settlement of liability under Amnesty scheme will not entitle the defaulter to claim re-conveyance of the bought in land. 8. In the light of the dictum laid down in the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments of this Court in State of Kerala & Others V.George Jacob 2010(3) KHC 381 and W.ANO.342/2010, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to claim re-conveyance of her property on the ground that she and other defaulters settled the liability under Amnesty Scheme. At the same time, in the light of the very same judgments, I deem it fit to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to mould reliefs on equitable grounds to render complete justice in the matter. 9. In the case on hand the liability of the petitioner out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.14,18,850/-due from the bidder was only Rs.3,54,713/-when it is divided among four surety-defaulters who invoked Amnesty Scheme to settle the liability. When the amount of Rs.10,64,138/-payable under Amnesty Scheme is divided among four surety-defaulters, the contrition of the petitioner is only Rs.2,66,035/-. With respect to the amount due from the petitioner the Government lost only an amount of Rs.88,678/- when it was settled under Amnesty Scheme. But the petitioner would lose her 25 cents of land if re-conveyance is not ordered even after settlement of liability. The time gap between the date of purchase by the property (19.04.2004) and the last date of payment (29.9.2009) by the petitioner is nearly 5 ½ years. The rate of interest provided under Section 6 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act is 12% per annum. I am of the view that if the petitioner pays Rs.88,678/-along with interest @ 12% per annum for 5 ½ years which would amount to Rs.1,47,205/-and is rounded to Rs.1,50,000/-, it would be a reasonable price for re-conveyance of her 25 cents of land. I am of the view that if the petitioner pays Rs.88,678/-along with interest @ 12% per annum for 5 ½ years which would amount to Rs.1,47,205/-and is rounded to Rs.1,50,000/-, it would be a reasonable price for re-conveyance of her 25 cents of land. My view is fortified by the facts that Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment has fixed Rs.1,00,000/-as reasonable price for 74.5 cents of land belonging the respondent in Ext.P3 in the same village; that the petitioner settled the liability under Amnesty Scheme in the year 2009; that the present writ petition has been remaining in this Court for the last more than 10 years; that the possession of the property has been remaining still with the petitioner and that the Government has not derived any benefit out of the said land though it purchased the land on 19.04.2004. That apart, the petitioner cleared the liability of the bidder on account the Solvency Certificate issued by her and she settled the liability only with the bonafide belief that she would be able to save her property. 10. If the State is allowed to retain the property of the petitioner after getting full recovery of the dues from the petitioner excluding the benefits under Amnesty Scheme, it would amount to undue enrichment to the State. State is under obligation to act fairly, justly and reasonably in every action including recovery arising from commercial transactions. This principle is embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. State is not expected to act in a shylockian manner in the mater of recovery of money by snatching both dues and property from the debtor. 11. Though the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property of the petitioner and the property involved in Exhibit P3 judgment are neighboring lands and hence prayed to fix the same rate for the petitioner’s land, there is no such data available before me. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed directing the competent among the respondents to re-convey the property having an extent of 25 cents in Survey No.518/5 of Neezhoor Village to the petitioner at her expenses, if the petitioner pays Rs.1,50,000/-within a period of two months from today. The re-conveyance of the property shall be done at the expenses of the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The re-conveyance of the property shall be done at the expenses of the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The above writ petition is accordingly disposed of.