S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the creditor. He has filed this peti- tion in which he is challenging the award made by the Debt Settlement Officer under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 and confirmed by the Appellate Officer. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 made an application to the Debt Settlement Officer for extinguishment of his debts or for scaling them down under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 The debt which he owed to the petitioner amounted to Rs. 2 690 He claimed to be a small farmer within the meaning of that expression given in sec. 2 (p) of the said Act. The Debt Settlement Officer recorded the conclusion that on the appoi- nted day respondent No. 1 was a small farmer and that his debt was extinguished under sec. 3 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE petitioner appealed against that award to the Appellate Officer. The Appellate Officer confirmed the finding that respondent No. 1 was a small farmer In the appointed day and scaled down that debt to Rs. 1 400 which was ordered to be paid to the petitioner in ten equal instalments without interest. He also ordered the petitioner to return forthwith to respondent No. 1 the security which he had given to the petitioner in order to secure the repayment of debt. ( 4 ) IT is that order which is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. ( 5 ) ON merits Mr. Dave has raised two contentions before us. His first contention is that there was no evidence to show what share respon- dent No. 1 had in the joint land owned by three brothers a part of which was given to the petitioner in order to secure the debt which respondent No. 1 owed to the petitioner. The record shows that the debt which res- pondent No. 1 owed to the petitioner was his individual debt. It was not pleaded by the petitioner that it was a joint debt of three brothers which respondent No. 1 had incurred in his own name. We must therefore proceed on the basis that the debt which respondent No. 1 owed to the petitioner was his individual debt. It was not pleaded by the petitioner that it was a joint debt of three brothers which respondent No. 1 had incurred in his own name. We must therefore proceed on the basis that the debt which respondent No. 1 owed to the petitioner was his individual debt. ( 6 ) IN order to decide the status of respondent No. 1 in the context of his individual debt the joint holding of three brothers cannot be taken into account. If an individual is the debtor it is his land or share in joint land which must be taken into account. That is the principle of equity and fair play. He cannot be denied the relief under the Act by taking into account the joint holding of three brothers. The Debt Settlement Officer was therefore justified in determining the status of respondent No. 1 with reference to 1/3rd share in the land jointly owned by three brothers. ( 7 ) IN so far as the appellate order directs the petitioner to return to respondent No. 1 forthwith the land given by him to the petitioner to secure the repayment of the debt we would like to invite the attention of the Appellate officer to our decision recorded in Special Civil Application No. 2279 of 1979 decided by us on 16th and 17/12/1989 (Vora Saiyedbhai Kadarbhai v. Saiyed Intejam Sedumiya) XXII G. L. R. 596 in which we have declared a part of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 ultra vires and held that a creditor cannot be required to return the security to his deb- tor before the scaled down debt has been repaid by him entirely. While making the final order upon remand the Appellate Officer shall bear in mind that decision of ours. Petition allowed. .