D. G. KARIA, J. ( 1 ) THE neat question of law that arises under this petition under An. 227 of the Constitution of India is interpretation of application of secs. 6 (3b) and 6 (3c) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 ( for short the Act) in the following facts and circumstances. ( 2 ) THE deceased Dahyabhai Manubhai and his family members held agricultural land Sr. No. 72 admeasuring A- 44-14 Gs. at Vinzuwada village and land Sr. No. 95 admeasuring A. 12-14 Gs. at village Varmor Ta: Viramgam Dist: Ahmedabad. Deceased Dahyabhai held in all A. 56-28 Gs. of agricultural land. After necessary inquiry in Ceiling case No. 2193/76 the Mamlatdar and ALT by his order dated November 25 1981 declared that Dahyabhai Manubhai held land admeasuring A. 06-05 Gs. in excess to the ceiling limit. It appears that mean while Dahyabhai expired and his heirs including his widow Bai Gangaben Dahyabhai preferred appeal before the Dy. Collector being Ceiling Appeal No. 67/81. The Deputy Collector by his order dated March 13 1981 quashed the order of the Mamlatdar and ALT passed on November 25 1981 and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar for giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and also an opportunity of selection under secs. 20 and 21 of the Act. The applicant Dahyabhai Manubhai had died on September 10 1978 On April 1 1976 he was alive and filed form No. 2 in respect of the land held by him. The Mamlatdar and ALT (Ceiling) Viramgam by his impugned judgment and order dated November 25 1981 held that there were five family members in the family of Dahyabhai Malubhai and that he had no major son on April I 1976 and as such the applicant was not entitled to get benefit under sec. 6 (3b) and 6 (3c) of the Act. The Mamlatdar thus concluded that the petitioners family was entitled to hold land admeasuring A 50-23 Gs. and that there was excess land of A. 06-05 Gs. ( 3 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment and order preferred appeal before the Dy. Collector (Appeals) at Ahmedabad who by his judgment and order dated February 19 1982 though there was no appeal on behalf of the respondent State held that the agricultural land admeasuring A. 10-05 Gs. ( 3 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment and order preferred appeal before the Dy. Collector (Appeals) at Ahmedabad who by his judgment and order dated February 19 1982 though there was no appeal on behalf of the respondent State held that the agricultural land admeasuring A. 10-05 Gs. owned and possessed by Raiyaben who was divorcee wife of Dahyabhai Malubhai should have been included in total area of land viz. A. 56-28 Gs. and thus the petitioners family had excess land to the extent of A 16-08 Gs. to the ceiling limit. It is not in dispute that Raiyaben was not a party either before the Mamlatdar 7 ALT and also before the appellate authority. ( 4 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the appellate authority preferred Revision Application No. TEN/ba/660/82 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by his impugned judgment and order dated September 8 1983 partly allowed the Revision Application by holding that the appellate authority committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the land owned by Bai Raiya should have been included in the total area of the land held by the petitioner. The Tribunal held that Raiyaben was not a party before the Mamlatdar and ALT nor it was shown that she was one of the family members of the petitioner. The Tribunal thus concluded that it was not proper to hold that the petitioners family possessed excess land admeasuring A 16. 08 Gs. in excess to the ceiling limit. The Tribunal however did not deal with or dispose of the point raised on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit under sec. 6 and 6 (3c) of the Act. Hence this petition. ( 5 ) MR. J. S. Patel learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that family of the petitioner comprised in all of 7 members at the relevant time. The finding of the learned Mamlatdar and ALT while deciding Issue No. 2 that number of family members of the petitioner did not exceed 5 was not correct. The Mamlatdar held that the petitioners family comprised of 5 members on the basis of succession entry. Mr. Patel has shown said succession entry and said entry just shows that there were 6 family members in the petitioners family. The Mamlatdar held that the petitioners family comprised of 5 members on the basis of succession entry. Mr. Patel has shown said succession entry and said entry just shows that there were 6 family members in the petitioners family. Shri Dahyabhai Malubhai was alive on the appointed day and in that circumstance number of petitioners family would be 7 (seven ). In that view of the matter Mr. Patel submitted that the petitioners were entitled to hold the land in excess to the ceiling area to the extent of 1/5th of the ceiling area subject to the limit that holding by the petitioners does not exceed twice the ceiling area. ( 6 ) SEC. 3 of the Act is in regard to the fixation of ceiling on holding land determination of surplus land and acquisition thereof. Sec. 6 (1) of the Act concentrates that w. e. f. the appointed day no person shall subject to the provisions of sub- sections (2) (3) (3a) and 3 (B) be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area whether as owner or tenant parity as owner and partly as tenant. Sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 6 of the Act reads as under:" (3b) Where a family or a joint family consist of more than five members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any of the following categories namely: (i) Minor son (ii) Widow of a pre-deceased son (iii) minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son where his mother or her mother is deadsuch family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five so however that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area and in such a case in relation to the holding of such family such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area. There are two proviso to sub-sec. (3b) of Sec. 6 of the Act which are not relevant for our purpose. ( 7 ) SEC. 2 (16) of the Act defines expression Joint Family as an undivided family and in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence and the expression person according to section 2 (21) includes a joint family. ( 7 ) SEC. 2 (16) of the Act defines expression Joint Family as an undivided family and in the case of other persons a group or unit the members of which by custom or usage are joint in estate or residence and the expression person according to section 2 (21) includes a joint family. There is nothing in the definition of the expression Joint Family to come to the conclusion that a widowed mother wife or unmarried daughters are intended to be excluded from the group or unit the members whereof are joint in estate or residence. Even sub-section (3b) of Section 6 reproduced hereinabove does not permit the Court to hold that such female members of the family are to be excluded from consideration while determining whether the size of the family is in excess of five members for the purpose of enlargement of the ceiling area in the event such family comprises a minor son widow of a pre-deceased son or minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son where his or her mother is dead. The Act does not define the expression Family. However the expression Joint Family includes in the case of persons not belonging to an undivided Hindu family a group or unit the members whereof are joint in estate or residence by custom or usage. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 gives a positive indication that wife and unmarried daughter would be members of a family i. e. a group or unit if they are either joint in estate or residence. ( 8 ) MR. BHATT learned AGP has not been able to show contrary to this position nor could show any provisions supporting the view taken by the courts below. ( 9 ) THE petitioner precisely pointed out before the Tribunal that the petitioners family comprised of in all 7 persons at the relevant time and therefore is entitled to hold land in excess of ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of ceiling area but the Tribunal has not dealt with or disposed of the point raised by the petitioner. This is error apparent an the face of the record. This is error apparent an the face of the record. The Tribunal should have seen that the learned Mamlatdar and ALT relied upon the succession entry for coming to the conclusion that the family of the petitioner comprised of 5 persons was erroneous on the face of it in as much as there were 7 family members in the family of the petitioner on the appointed day. Family of the petitioner comprised of Dahyabhai Malubhai his widow Gangaben son Kamabhai daughter Babuben minor daughter Shantaben and minor son Jalubhai. At the relevant time family of the petitioner consisted of more than five persons. The petitioners are therefore entitled to get benefit of sec. 6 (3b) of the Act. ( 10 ) MR. Patel learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions; (i) Nathekhan Sojakhan Bihari vs. Mamlatdar Vadgam and Others reported in 1984 GLH 1066 ; and (ii) Chudasama Sambhaji Kalubha vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 1984 GLH 1001 . The ratio laid down in both these decisions clearly apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that view of the matter the petitioners are entitled to hold the land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling area. Since the family unit of the petitioner exceeded five in number the petitioners are entitled to hold the land in excess of the ceiling area are to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling area. Since the excess land in the case of the petitioner was A. 6-05 Gs. which is less than even one-fifth of the ceiling area it cannot be held that the holding of the petitioner exceeded the prescribed ceiling limit as held by the courts below. ( 11 ) IN the result the petition succeeds. The orders passed by the authorities below including Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner does not hold land in excess of the permissible land ceiling under the Act. Rule made absolute accordingly with costs. Petition Allowed. .