JUDGMENT : The petitioner, a private limited company, is the present owner of 28.32 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No. W 17 B1 TS 15 of Thiruvangadu village. The properties were the subject matter of Ext.P2 registered gift deed No. 968 of 1927 of the SRO, Thalassery. Items 1 and 2 in the schedule of Ext.P2 are shown as garden lands and item 3 is shown as reclaimed garden land, including a pond. It is specifically stated in the recitals in the document that item 3 was purchased by the donor in 1915 as per a registered document and that he had reclaimed the property at his expense thereafter. It can thus be seen that when Ext.P2 was executed in 1927, the entire land was garden land. In 1969, two of the donees executed registered release deeds, releasing the property in favour of the other donees. Thereafter, by Ext.P4 registered Will No. 97 of 1996, one of the co-owners Sri Prabhakaran, bequeathed his share in the properties to his sons and certain other near relatives. Subsequently, the legatees under Ext.P4 Will and the other sharers executed Ext.P5 sale deed No.2313 of 2011 of SRO, Thalassery in favour of the petitioner company. 2. The properties were included in the draft data bank as reclaimed land. By Ext.P6 proceedings dated 3.12.2020, the properties were removed from the data bank. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 application in Form 9 under Rule 12(13) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on 21.12.2020. On 20.5.2021, the 1st respondent noted that Ext.P2 shows the properties as “Nilam” and hence Ext.P10 application cannot be entertained. The petitioner was directed to prefer an application in Form 7. The petitioner preferred Ext.P12 appeal against Ext.P11 order, before the 2nd respondent. Since no decision was forthcoming on the appeal, the petitioner preferred W.P. (C)No.12723 of 2021 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 appeal within 4 months. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P14 order rejecting the application. The order only says that on physical inspection it is not evident that the property had been converted prior to 1967 and hence the application is rejected. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P14 order rejecting the application. The order only says that on physical inspection it is not evident that the property had been converted prior to 1967 and hence the application is rejected. Ext.P14 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25782 of 2021, which was allowed by this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment, setting aside Ext.P14 order and directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider and dispose of the appeal after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the 2nd respondent along with his counsel and also submitted Ext.P16 hearing note. By Ext.P17, the 2nd respondent has again rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. A reading of Ext.P17 order shows that the 2nd respondent has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits. All that has been stated in the order is that the Junior Superintendent who represented the 1st respondent had stated that the properties referred to by the petitioner are properties on the western side of the road and that the application has been submitted regarding the properties on the eastern side of the road, where a pond is also situated. Ext.P17 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard Sri Alex M.Scaria, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Rajeev Jyothish George, Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. One of the primary documents which can be relied on under Rule 12 of the Rules are title deeds which specifically says that the lands are converted lands. Ext.P1 which is a registered document of 1927 specifically says that Item 3 in the schedule to the document was “Nilam”, and that after obtaining the said property as per a registered document in 1915, the donor had reclaimed the entire land. Ext.P2 shows 3 sub-items in item 3 of the schedule. The property is described as “nilam nikathiya paramba” in vernacular, which when translated can only mean paddy land that has been reclaimed as garden land. Sub-item (3) is stated to be further east of the “nilam nikathiya paramba” and also has a pond. The contention of the respondents is that the reclaimed land is only the land to the west of sub-item (3) in item 3 of the schedule to Ext.P2 and hence Ext.P2 cannot be treated as evidence that the land has been converted prior to 1927. The above said contention cannot be countenanced. The contention of the respondents is that the reclaimed land is only the land to the west of sub-item (3) in item 3 of the schedule to Ext.P2 and hence Ext.P2 cannot be treated as evidence that the land has been converted prior to 1927. The above said contention cannot be countenanced. The contention is raised overlooking the specific statement in the document that the entire 3rd item in the schedule was obtained in 1915 as per a registered document and reclaimed by the donor before the donor executed Ext.P2 gift deed. The description of sub-item 3 of item 3 of the schedule only identifies its location to be to the east of subitems 1 and 2 and does not say that it is nilam. In 1927, the executant of the document could not have anticipated the introduction of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in 1967 or the 2008 Act. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement contained in Ext.P2 document. It is also to be considered that the document is almost a 95 year old document and its evidentiary value requires to be conceded. 5. The counsel for the petitioner further points out that it can be seen from Ext.P3 document of 1969 that item 3 was a Kuzhikanam right. The counsel pointed out that Kuzhikanam does not relate to paddy land and is essentially executed with respect to garden land or is executed granting the right to plant trees and enjoy the usufructs. Reference is made to Section 2(23) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The above contention of the petitioner is also justified. It also supports the statement in Ext.P2 regarding the reclamation of the land after obtaining the right in 1915. Another contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the property has been included in the residential zone as per the Development Plan prepared under the Town Planning Act. I do not think it is necessary to go into that issue, since there is sufficient intrinsic evidence available to prove that the properties had been converted much prior to 1967. The petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. I do not think it is necessary to go into that issue, since there is sufficient intrinsic evidence available to prove that the properties had been converted much prior to 1967. The petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. This is the second occasion when the petitioner had to challenge the appellate order of the 2nd respondent and I do not think it will be just and fair to relegate the petitioner once again to the statutory authority to consider the appeal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P11 and P17 are set aside. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to prefer an application in Form 9 since this Court has already found that the properties have been reclaimed prior to 1927. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P10 application based on the above declaration and pass necessary orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.