JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is an appeal under Section 33(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act against order dated 20-12-1982 passed by the Competent Authority in U.L.C. Case No. 360/76. Appellant's family consists of self and two sons. They own 1.388 acres and 3 Kadis. Three cases are started here. Cases against the sons have been dropped. Major part of the land is water logged. Competent Authority accepted this but held that they have potentials for house construction. 2. Shri S.K. Dey. lawyer appearing for the appellant quoted 1979 AIR Calcutta N.O.C. 129 wherein it has been held that agricultural land may be fallow but its potentiality is not relevant. He also relies on 54(1982) C.L.T. page 111 wherein our High Court has held that the present-status of the land has to be seen as on the appointed date. Lastly he argue that husband and wife in this case are entitled to get equal shares even though husband is alive. Wife had no notice. 3. Additional Standing Counsel argues that it is an ancestral land and even though it is water logged for some days in a year neighbouring lands in similar condition have got Telephone Bhavan and other buildings, While our High Court decision quoted above is binding on the question of tank, iris silent on waterlogged areas. The Record-of Right notes this land as Patita. 4. Another question was also raised whether in the notional partition contemplated by the statute under section 4(7) the husband and wife are entitled to equal shares or only one share, In AIR 1967 Orissa, 164, it has been clearly stated that in notional partition mother is entitled to as much share as the son. In other words, each will get l/4th share. Competent Authority is right in his decision in this respect. 5. I agree with the Additional Standing Counsel that our High Court judgment cannot be taken advantage of by the appellant for water logged areas where houses are being constructed. Only for tanks this judgment is applicable. 6. Competent Authority is right in holding that this area is not unfit for buildings and as such it is fit for inclusion in the total land. 7. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed