Court allows appeal, cancels property sale under Revenue Recovery Act, directing return to appellant within two months.

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and vacating the judgment of the Single Judge. The court directed the Government to cancel the sale of the property under the Revenue Recovery Act and return it to the appellant within two months. This decision was based on the principle of restitution, emphasizing justice, equity, and fair play, as established in various Supreme Court precedents.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Re-conveyance of bought-in-land.
2. Validity of the sale of property under the Revenue Recovery Act.
3. Restitution of property post-assessment modification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Re-conveyance of Bought-in-Land:
The primary issue initially appeared to be whether the owner of a property, sold under the Revenue Recovery Act and bought by the Government, could seek reconveyance after settling the liability under an Amnesty Scheme. The court referred to settled law, including precedents like *State of Kerala v. George Jacob* (2010), *Laxmi Devi Tile Works v. District Collector, Thrissur* (2009), and *Sibi Francis v. State of Kerala* (2013), concluding that reconveyance is not permissible merely because the dues were paid subsequently.

2. Validity of the Sale of Property Under the Revenue Recovery Act:
The appellant's property was auctioned due to unpaid tax assessments. Despite initial appeals and an interim stay, the property was eventually bid in favor of the Government. However, the Tribunal later set aside the original assessment orders, significantly reducing the tax liability. This raised the question of whether the sale of the property, based on now-invalidated assessments, was valid.

3. Restitution of Property Post-Assessment Modification:
The court emphasized that the real issue was not reconveyance but the validity of the sale itself, given the Tribunal's order nullifying the original assessments. The sale's foundation was obliterated by the Tribunal's decision, rendering the sale illegal and untenable. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in *Mohan Wali v. Commissioner, Income-Tax, Varanasi* (2001), which held that a sale based on a subsequently nullified assessment must be canceled.

Restitution Principle:
The court underscored the principle of restitution, which mandates restoring a party to their original position if a decree or order is reversed or modified. This principle is rooted in justice, equity, and fair play, as recognized in various Supreme Court judgments, including *South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P.* (2003) and *State of Gujarat v. Essar Oil Ltd.* (2012). The court concluded that the state must return the property to the appellant, as holding onto it after the assessment's nullification constituted unjust enrichment.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was vacated. The court directed the Government to cancel the sale and return the property to the appellant within two months, ensuring complete justice and equity.

---