J. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners by this petition challenge the order passed by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act," dated 19-4-1980 as confirmed by the appellate authority under Sec. 33 of the said Act by its judgment and order, dated 30/08/1980. ( 2 ) RELEVANT facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : (I) Deceased Babubhai Narottam Kansara and his wife Jashkorbai purchased a parcel of land bearing S. No. 205 admeasuring 2 Acres 44 Gunthas equal to 11433 Sq. Mts. by Registered Sale deed, dated 19/01/1961. Said Babubhai Narottam Kansara expired on 23/07/1970 leaving behind him his widow Jashkorbai and six major sons who are petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 herein and two major daughters who are petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 herein. His widow jashkorbai expired on 17/09/1979. (ii) The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force in the State of Gujarat on 17/02/1976. When the Act came into force, as aforesaid, said Babubhai Kansara had expired and he died intestate leaving behind the petitioners and his widow. Under Sec. 6 (1) of the said Act all the present petitioners and their mother (widow of deceased Babubhai Kansara) filled in Form 1, and inter alia, claimed that land admeasuring 5429 Sq. Mts. was held by each one of them, over and above, other property held by them in Goregaon in the State of Maharashtra. (iii) It appears that after processing the said form the competent authority, prima facie, found that the petitioners were not entitled to hold their respective shares separately and individually, and therefore, it issued notice, dated 17/11/1979 under Sec. 6 (2) of the said Act requiring them to file fresh statement under Sec. 6 (1) as a body of individuals or as association of persons. In the said notice the competent authority further observed that on failure of the petitioners to file such statement penal action should be taken against the petitioners under Sec. 38 of the said Act. (iv) Pursuant to said notice petitioners filed fresh form under Sec. 6 (1) on 5/12/1979 as an association of persons or body of individuals and therein they mentioned the property bearing s. No. 205 admeasuring 11433 Sq. Mts. and two properties situated in the State of Maharashtra. (iv) Pursuant to said notice petitioners filed fresh form under Sec. 6 (1) on 5/12/1979 as an association of persons or body of individuals and therein they mentioned the property bearing s. No. 205 admeasuring 11433 Sq. Mts. and two properties situated in the State of Maharashtra. It may be stated at this stage that there is no dispute as regards properties situated in the State of Maharashtra and only the dispute centers round the s. No. 205 admeasuring 11433 Sq. Mts. situated at Udhna. In this statement the petitioners further claimed that they had 1/8th share each in the said properties since their mother had died by that time and they also stated that they were the members of undivided hindu Family. (v) The competent authority, thereafter, issued draft statement under Sec. 8 (1) of the said Act. Said draft statement was prepared on the basis that the petitioners were a body of individuals. Petitioners filed their objections to the said draft statement on 15/01/1980. The petitioners also filed application for exemption under Sec. 20 of the said Act. Which came to be rejected on 31/03/1980 presumably on the ground that the land was required by the local authorities. (vi) Thereafter, the competent authority passed impugned order, dated 19-4-1980 holding that all the eight petitioners were holding the said parcel of land as a body of individuals and they were in possession of excess land to the extent of 10157 Sq. Mts. From the total holding of 11657 Sq. Mts. the competent authority granted 1,500 Sq Mts. of land as permissible holding and the balance vacant land being 10157 Sq. Mts. was declared to be excess vacant land. The competent authority also reached a finding that since the petitioners inherited property from their deceased father Babubhai Kansara when he died intestate in the year 1970 they cannot be said to be holding land as undivided H. U. F. Such finding was reached without any reasoning except stating that the petitioners cannot be said to be holding land as undivided Hindu Family. (vii) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the competent authority the petitioners carried the matter in appeal under Sec. 33 of the said Act and the appellate authority by its judgment and order, dated 30/08/1980 dismissed the said appeal, inter alia, holding that it was not established that the land was held by Hindu Undivided family and secondly that since forms were filed by the petitioners individually or subsequently as association of persons or body of individuals the petitioners were not entitled to separate share in the properties and they were entitled to only one unit which was granted by the competent authority. ( 3 ) MR. S. V. Bachani, learned Advocate for petitioners submits that the orders of the lower authorities are in total disregard of the provisions of Sec. 4 (7) of the said Act read with Sec. 2 (f) and Sec. 2 (i ). He further submits that the lower authorities were harbouring under wrong impression that since the property is inherited from the great-grandfather, i. e. , by the third generation, the property cannot be said to have been held as undivided Hindu Family property, and this misconception has resulted into passing of the impugned orders. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the submission made by Mr. Bachani, learned advocate for petitioners, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the said Act :" (A) Sec. 2 (f) of the said Act defines "family" as under : "family" in relation to a person, means the individual, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children; (b) Sec. (i) of the said Act defines the word "person" as under : "person" includes an individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. " ( 5 ) FROM the definition of word "family" it becomes clear that undivided Hindu family is excluded from the said definition. In fact, this exclusion of undivided hindu Family has given rise to challenge to the legality and constitutionality of said definition. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1981 SC 234 dealt with the said challenge to the legality and constitutionality of said definition. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of maharao Saheb Shri Bhim Singhji and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1981 SC 234 dealt with the said challenge to the legality and constitutionality of said definition. Justice A. P. Sen, in his concurring judgment found that :"as a result of the artificial definition of "family" in Sec. 2 (f), there is no denying the fact that a Joint Hindu Family is excluded from the purview of the Act. Sec 3 of the Act provides that no person, on and from the commencement of the Act, shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. The word "peison" is defined in Sec. 2 (i) of the Act as reproduced hereinabove. "having considered these two definitions His Lordship found that the Parliament excluded the Joint Hindu Family from the purview of Sec. 3 of the impugned act. For the reasons stated in para 91 of the said judgment, His Lordship ultimately reached the conclusion that there was nothing wrong in excluding Joint Hindu family. The Act applies to Hindus, Muslims and Christians. By the exclusion of Joint Hindu Family members of Joint Hindu Family are brought on par with others. ( 6 ) IT is, thus, clear that the exclusion of Joint Hindu Family from the definition of word family as defined by Sec. 2 (f) of the said Act is not only deliberate but also purposive. However. Sec. 3 which enacts the prescription against person holding vacant land in excess of ceiling limit provides that except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of ceiling limit. The word person would include, as can be seen from the definition reproduced hereinabove, an individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals. Question, therefore, which arises is whether members of Hindu Undivided Family who have inherited the properties from their deceased father are to be treated as one person or unit for the purpose of the said Act ? or whether the members of the said Hindu Undivided Family would be entitled to have separate unit limits or ceilings ? Question, therefore, which arises is whether members of Hindu Undivided Family who have inherited the properties from their deceased father are to be treated as one person or unit for the purpose of the said Act ? or whether the members of the said Hindu Undivided Family would be entitled to have separate unit limits or ceilings ? The competent authority has taken a view that because of exclusion of Hindu Undivided Family from the definition of word family, all members of Hindu Undivided Family would constitute a body of individuals or association of persons and would therefore be regarded as a person entitled to hold one unit only. ( 7 ) AT this stage it may be noticed that the entitlement to an individual to hold land is fixed by Sec. 3 of the said Act. Section 3 of the said Act reads as under :"3 Persons not entitled to hold yacant land in excess of the ceiling limit : except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from the commencement of this act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, in the territories to which this Act applies under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. I. " it is clear from the said section that no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit except as otherwise provided in this Act. The word person would include a family. It would also include an individual. In order to ascertain the entitlement of members of Hindu undivided Family to hold any vacant land reference to the other provisions of the Act is necessary and the most relevant provision is Sec. 4 (7) of the said Act. Sub-sec. 4 (7) is reproduced as under : "4 (7 ). Where a person is a member of a Hindu Undivided Family, so much of the vacant land and of any other land on which there is a building with a dwelling unit therein, as would have fallen to his share had the entire vacant land and such other land held by the Hindu Undivided Family been partitioned amongst its members at the commencement of this Act shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. "it is clear from the aforesaid provisions of Sec. 4 (7) that where a person is a member of Hindu Undivided Family so much of the vacant land as would have fallen to his share had there been partition of Hindu Undivided Family amongst its members at the commencement of the Act, shall be taken into account while calculating the extent of the vacant land held by such person. The effect, therefore, is that the date on which the Act came into force there shall be a notional partition amongst all the major coparceners of Hindu undivided Family and so much of the vacant land as would have fallen to the share of individual member would be regarded as his holding. Therefore, on coming into force of this Act if the land is held by Hindu Undivided family it cannot be said that all the members of such family are entitled to one ceiling limit or one unit alone as body of individuals or association of persons. In my opinion, Sec. 4 (7) shall operate and the effect of said subsection is that all the major co-parceners in an undivided Hindu family shall be entitled to one separate unit on the date on which the Act came into force. The father, mother, major sons and daughters constitute undivided Hindu family. In this case, on the death of father, his widow, six major sons and two major daughters constitute family as defined under Sec. 2 (f) of the Act. All major members of this family were therefore, entitled to hold one unit each as a person. In fact, that appears to be the intention of the Government and with a view to give effect to said provision, the Central Government issued orders and directions under Sec. 47 of the said Act. Mr. Bachani, learned advocate for petitioners, invited my attention to the Circulars issued by the ministry of Works and Housing. Under caption Ceiling limit of co-owners of vacant land and ceiling limit of members of Joint Hindu Family who inherit property the Govt. Mr. Bachani, learned advocate for petitioners, invited my attention to the Circulars issued by the ministry of Works and Housing. Under caption Ceiling limit of co-owners of vacant land and ceiling limit of members of Joint Hindu Family who inherit property the Govt. of India has examined following two points and subsequently issued following two clarifications :" (I) Whether in the case of co-owners of vacant land each co-owner is entitled to hold vacant land upto his ceiling limit or whether the co-owners jointly should be treated as a person and the holding of the co-owners of vacant land should be restricted to the ceiling limit, and (ii) What is the position of the members of a Joint Hindu Family who have acquired property by inheritance and whether they are to be treated as co-owners. The Government of India clarifies that: (i) If the co-owners have well defined shares they should be treated as individuals with reference to their defined shares for calculating the vacant land which they are entitled to hold under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and (ii) Members of a Joint Hindu Family who have acquired property by inheritance may be treated in the same manner as members of HUF (Hindu Undivided family) are treated under Sec. 4 (7) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. " ( 8 ) THE Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was faced with, more or less, identical situation in the case of Pratima Paul and Ors. v. Competent authority and Ors. , reported in AIR 1990 Calcutta 185. Before the Division bench of Calcutta High Court the family was of father, mother and four minor children. Father expired after coming into force of the said Act, i. e. , on 6- 9-1976. Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee who concurred with Justice A. K. Nandi stated this very contention in the following terms :"the second question that arises for determination is that whether members of a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of a mother and her minor sons, inheriting the land in question from their husband and father respectively, are to be treated as one "person" or unit for the purpose of the Act or would have separate ceiling limits under Sec. 4 (7) of the Act. The word "person" has been defined in Sec. 2 (i) as to include "an individual" as well as a "family" and "family" has been defined as to mean "the individual, the wife or husband as the case may be, of such individuals and their unmarried minor children". Prima facie, therefore, a husband, and wife and their minor children constituting a "family" as defined in Sec. 2 (f) are a "person" as defined in Sec. 2 (i ). Section 4, however, in fixing the ceiling, provides in sub-sec. (7) that "where a person is a member of Hindu Undivided family so much of the vacant land as would have failed to his share had the entire vacant land held by the Hindu Undivided Family been partitioned amongst its members at the commencement of the Act, shall also be taken into account in calculating the extent of vacant land held by such person. "the learned Judge further observes that :"joint or Undivided Family in Hindu Law, though not a juristic person, is nevertheless a juristic concept having no counterpart in the other Personal laws. Even if some Muslims or Christians or other non-Hindus are member of a Family and, being undivided, are member of an Undivided Family and have acquired common properties by succession or otherwise, the properties would belong to them individually in defined shares and not to the Undivided Family in any sense as understood in Hindu Law And all such co-sharers or co-owners would obviously be treated as separate person and unit and to have separate ceilings. But as throughout all the ages there had been some amount of obfuscation about the juristic personality or entity of Hindu Joint or Undivided Family the co-parceners are held not to have any distinct or definite shares until partition and ancestral properties are treated to be held by the Family, and not the members, care was taken in Sec. 4 (7) to provide that all such members of a Hindu Undivided Family would be deemed to have such shares as would have been available to them on partition at the commencement of the Act and would be treated as separata persons having separate ceilings. Even in Sec. 4 (7) the expression used is "land held by the hindu Undivided Family" as if as a legal entity, and not land held by the members of such a Family. Even in Sec. 4 (7) the expression used is "land held by the hindu Undivided Family" as if as a legal entity, and not land held by the members of such a Family. "same is the view of Justice Nandi. ( 9 ) SIMILAR view is taken by the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Savitaben v. Stale of Gujarat, reported in [1990 (2)] XXXI (2) GLR 792. In the case before the learned single Judge four petitioners claimed to be the co-owners of immovable properties. The Court after following the Supreme court decision took the view that :"when co-owners hold earmarked shares in a common property, they can be said to be tenants in common. Their specified shares do not undergo fluctuation by addition to the group of co-owners or by deletion from the said group. If actual partition by metes and bounds takes place, they do not remain co-owners but they become separate owners of separate parcels of lands put in their possession, but so long that eventuality does not take place, they remain tenants in common being co-owners of specified shares. "merely because such person do not hold land separately, in the absence of partition by metes and bounds, the Court held, that it cannot be said that land was held by such persons as association or group of persons. Exactly, same mistake is committed by the competent authority in the present case. The reasoning which found favour with the learned single Judge in the said case is based on the decision of the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The expression "person" includes an individual, family, company or an association or body of individuals. The tenants in common cannot be treated as an association or body of individuals. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners who are the members of Undivided Hindu Family should not have been regarded as a "body of individuals" or "association of individuals". Under Sec. 4 (7) of the said Act. They were entitled to hold as much share as was available to them on partition of the property. On the. date on which the Act came into force there was full partition of property and each major co-parcener was entitled to as much share as would have fallen to his share. Under Sec. 4 (7) of the said Act. They were entitled to hold as much share as was available to them on partition of the property. On the. date on which the Act came into force there was full partition of property and each major co-parcener was entitled to as much share as would have fallen to his share. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the competent authority as well as the appellate authorities were clearly wrong in regarding major members of Undivided Hindu Family as an association of persons and in granting them only one unit or ceiling limit. As per the settled position of law read with Sec. 4 (7) of the said Act, each petitioner was entitled to hold one separate unit and, accordingly, since their holding do not exceed permissible ceiling limit of 1500 Sq. Mts. There was no justification on the part of the competent authority in holding that the petitioners were holding excess land. Therefore, judgment and orders of the lower authorities are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the competent authority for finalising Form 1 as per the observations made in this judgment. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. .