JUDGMENT : Ext.P13 order of the District Collector is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner herein. Petitioner sought for issuance of patta in respect of 0.05 cents of land in resurvey No.39/1 of Nelliyampathy Village. Patta was sought to be issued under the Kerala Land Assignment Act (Regularization of Occupation of Forests Lands Prior to 1/1/1977) Special Rules, 1993 (Special Rules, 1993- for short). Petitioner’s application was rejected vide Ext.P13, after a joint inspection conducted by the Revenue as well as Forest Officials, finding that the subject property is a reserve forest, and the petitioner failed to adduce evidence to show his possession over the same, prior to 1/1/1977. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to various documents which would indicate his predecessor's possession over the subject property. The 1 st document in point of time is Ext.P3, which is sale deed of the year 1967 executed by one Natarajan in favour of one Philomina. The subject property is the one described in Schedule 2 to Ext.P3. Philomina, who got title as per Ext.P3, sold the same to K.J.Sebastian, vide Ext.P2. It is from the said K.J.Sebastian that the petitioner, Marykutty Abraham purchased the subject property vide Ext.P1. 3. Secondly, it was argued that Ext.P6, which is issued by the Tahsildar (Land Reforms) to the District Collector contains the details of - (i) persons in whose favour patta had been issued, (ii) in whose favour patta cannot be issued and (iii) in whose cases, the matter requires reconsideration. The subject property belongs to the third category which requires reconsideration. In Ext.P6, the petitioner’s immediate predecessor Sebastian’s name occurs at Sl.No.7, wherein the extent shown correctly matches with the extent shown in Exts.P1 and P2 documents. 4. Again, learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Annexure R9(c), which contains the details of the properties, in respect of which patta is not liable to be issued. There, Sl.no.4 is Sebastian, petitioner’s predecessor. The extent is 0.0280 and reasons stated for non issuance of patta is that the property has been sold out. It is the petitioner’s contention that the sale of the property will not disentitle the benefit under the Special Rules, 1993. There, Sl.no.4 is Sebastian, petitioner’s predecessor. The extent is 0.0280 and reasons stated for non issuance of patta is that the property has been sold out. It is the petitioner’s contention that the sale of the property will not disentitle the benefit under the Special Rules, 1993. According to the petitioner, Rule 5 of the said Rules specifically provides the same, which is stipulates that the land can either be possessed by the assignee or by any of his predecessors. On such premise, the petitioner contends that Ext.P13 is bad in law. 5. Per-contra, learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) argued to sustain Exts.P12 and P13 documents. It was reiterated that the property in question is a reserved forest. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds considerable force in submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as is decipherable from the title deeds produced at Exts.P1 and P2 and also from Ext.P6. There is clear indication that the petitioner’s predecessors were in possession of the property prior to 1/1/1977. The same is the case with respect to Annexure R9(c). Ext.P5 is a mahazar, which is prepared by the Tahsildar, indicating that the subject property has been in the hands of the petitioner’s predecessor Sebastian for the past 25 years. When Ext.P5 is dated 12/11/1991, 25 years prior to the same would certainly cover the cut off date of 1/1/1977. 7. In the light of the above referred facts and circumstances, Ext.P13 cannot be sustained, and the same is set aside. There will be a direction to the 4 th respondent-District Collector to consider the matter afresh in the light of Exts.P1 to P3 documents, Ext.P5 mahazar, Ext.P6 proceedings and also Annexure R9(c). The fresh consideration directed shall be undertaken within a period three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open for the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before 4 th respondent for compliance. Needless to say, that the petitioner will be afforded an opportunity of being heard before taking a final call in his application for issuance of patta in respect of the subject property having been extent of 0.05 cents in resurvey No.39/1 of Nelliyampathy Village. This WP(c) is disposed of as above.