A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (Respondent no. 1 herein) on 9th December 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Lands (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, ("the Act" for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad ("the Appellate Authority" for convenience) on 1st October, 1987 in Appeal No. Rajkot-258 of 1984 is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1266. 42 square metres. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was holding on the appointed day for the purposes of the Act certain vacant lands within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. He therefore filled in the prescribed form under Section 6 (1) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a draft statement came to be prepared and came to be served to the petitioner in accordance with Section 8 thereof. The petitioner filed his objections thereto. After hearing the petitioner, by his order passed on 9th December, 1983 under Section 8 (4) thereof, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner to he in excess of the ceiling limit by 1266. 42 square metres. Its copy is at annexurc-H to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Appellate authority under Section 33 of the Act. A copy of the memo of appeal is at Annexure-J to this petition. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Rajkot-258 of 1984. By his order passed on 1st October, 1987 in the aforesaid appeal, the Appellate Authority dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure-K to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure-H to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-K to this petition. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that the property at serial No. 7 on internal page 6 of the impugned order at Annexure-H to this petition was shown to be of the joint ownership of the petitioner with another person. ( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that the property at serial No. 7 on internal page 6 of the impugned order at Annexure-H to this petition was shown to be of the joint ownership of the petitioner with another person. That was so shown in the declaration made under section 6 (1) of the Act. According to the petitioner, he had only his one half share, therein on account bf its joint purchase by the petitioner and items co-owner by investment of equal funds. Respondent No. 1 rejected that contention of the petitioner only on the ground that the sale document did not specify shares of the petitioner and the other co-owner, and he therefore included the entire area in the petitioners holding. ( 4 ) AS rightly submitted by Shri Jani for the petitioner, the aforesaid view is contrary to the relevant provisions contained in Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On its correct interpretation, there is no room for doubt that, when a property is purchased jointly by two or more persons and their respective share therein is not specified, they will be deemed to be holding such property in equal share. In that view of the matter, respondent No. l was not right in including the entire area on the said property in the holding of the petitioner. In fact, only one half area thereof should have been included in his holding. ( 5 ) SO far as the property at serial No. 5 on internal page 6 of the impugned order at annexure-H to this petition is concerned, it was the case of the petitioner that it was sold to one Ashok Amratlal Shah prior to coming into force of the Act. Respondent No. 1 included that property in the holding of the petitioner on the ground that the transaction took place within the prohibited period from 28th January, 1975 to 28th January, 1976. As rightly submitted by Shri Jani for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 ought to have accepted the case of the petitioner that it was a bona fide sale transaction. For that purpose, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to have issued a notice to the purchaser to ascertain whether or not the sale transaction in his favour was genuine. As rightly submitted by Shri Jani for the petitioner, respondent No. 1 ought to have accepted the case of the petitioner that it was a bona fide sale transaction. For that purpose, it was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to have issued a notice to the purchaser to ascertain whether or not the sale transaction in his favour was genuine. It is not in dispute that in the declaration made by the petitioner under Section 6 (1) of the Act, the said property was shown to have been sold to said Ashok Amratlal Shah. In view of the relevant provision contained in Section 8 of the Act read with Rule 5 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Rules, 1976 it was incumbent upon respondent No. 1 to have issued a notice to the said purchaser who was admittedly an interested person qua the said property. It is not necessary to set aside his impugned order at Annexure-H to this petition on this ground at this stage and to order the remand of the case to him for his fresh decision after serving the required notice to the said purchaser. I have chosen not to take this course for the simple reason that the record of the case clearly goes to show that the sale transaction entered into by the petitioner with the said purchaser was quite genuine and bonafide. It is not in dispute that the sale transaction was effected on 6th July, 1975. It was a plot in a co-operative Society and its transfer was effected by transfer of the shares of the Society in favour of the purchaser by passing the necessary Resolution by the Society. The petitioner had placed on record the resolution of the Society before respondens No. 1 herein. When respondent No. 1 did not think it fit to give notice to the said purchaser for verification of the genuineness of the transaction, it was incumbent upon him to have accepted the petitioners case in that regard. I am therefore of the opinion that the said property should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, I arn of the opinion that the holding of the petitioner deserves to be reduced by in all 505. 65 sqaure metres. I am therefore of the opinion that the said property should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, I arn of the opinion that the holding of the petitioner deserves to be reduced by in all 505. 65 sqaure metres. In that view of the matter, the excess land in the hands of the petitioner would be to the tune of 760. 77 square metres It needs no telling that the remaining order of respondent No. 1 herein at annexure-H to this petition is perfectly legal and valid. ( 7 ) IT is difficult to accept the submission urged before me by Shri Jani for the petitioner to the effect that in the residential plots the area which is required to be kept open on account of Building Regulations of the Rajkot Urban Development Authority should be taken to be not falling within the purview of the expression "vacant land" as defined under Section 2 (q) of the Act. The reason therefor is quite simple. What the building Regulations would require is keeping open the margin for beneficial use of the constructed area. It will not be non-constructible portion. Non-constructible portion for the purposes of exclusion from the purview of vacant land" for the purposes of the Act would be such area on which construction would not be permissible on account of some rules and Regulations having the force of law. For example, if construction is not possible on account of passing of the road line or passing of the high voltage grid line, that area will have to be compulsorily left open without construction. What the law contemplates for exclusion from the purview of "vacant land" or the purposes of the Act is such land and not what is required to be kept open for beneficial use of the constructed portion. ( 8 ) THIS point is concluded by the ruling of this Court in the case of Anilkumar ravishankar Trivedi vs. Competent Authority, reported in 1994 (2) G. C. D. at page 609. Sitting as a Single Judge it is binding to me. Even otherwise I am in respectful agreement with it. ( 8 ) THIS point is concluded by the ruling of this Court in the case of Anilkumar ravishankar Trivedi vs. Competent Authority, reported in 1994 (2) G. C. D. at page 609. Sitting as a Single Judge it is binding to me. Even otherwise I am in respectful agreement with it. ( 9 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at annexure-H to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-K to this petition cannot be sustained in law in to to. It deserves to be quashed and set aside to the extent indicated in this judgment of mine. ( 10 ) IN the result, this petition is partly accepted to the extent indicated in this judgment. This order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (Respondent No. 1 herein) on 9th December, 1983 at Annexure-H to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 1st October, 1987 in appeal No. Rajkot-258 of 1984 at Annexure-K to this petition is quashed and set aside to the aforesaid extent. It is hereby declared that the holding of the petitioner is in excess of the ceiling limit by 760. 77 square metres. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 for preparing the final statement accordingly after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for giving choice of the vacant land for surrender. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .