A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No, 1 herein) on 1st December, 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the impugned order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmcdabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on llth september, 1987 in Appeal No. Rajkot-16 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 1073. 97 square metres. ( 2 ) ). The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was holding certain properties within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot on the appointed day for the purposes of the Act. He therefore filed the required declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6 (1) thereof. Pursuant there to, a draft statement came to be prepared and came to be served to the petitioner in accordance with Section 8 thereof. The petitioner appears to have filed his objections thereto. After hearing the petitioner, by his order passed on 1st December, 1983 under Section 8 (4) thereof, respondent No. 1 declared the petitioners holding to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 1073. 97 square metres. Its copy is at Annexure-A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 2 under Section 33 of the Act. It came to be registered as Appeal No. Rajkot-16 of 1984. By his order passed on 11th September, 1987 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 dismissed it. . Its copy is at Anncxurc-B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached "this Court by means of this petition under. Article 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition. ( 3 ) ). Shri Nanavaty for the petitioner has confined his dispute to the two properties at serial Nos. 5 and 6 appearing at internal page 4 of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition. ( 3 ) ). Shri Nanavaty for the petitioner has confined his dispute to the two properties at serial Nos. 5 and 6 appearing at internal page 4 of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition. So far as the property at serial No. 6 is concerned, according to Shri Nanavaty, it was a constructed property for industrial purposes and the construction was in existence prior to coming into force of the Act, and as such it was wrongly included in the holding of the petitioner. So far as the property at serial No. 5 is concerned, according to Shri Nanavaty, the petitioner had only his one-third share therein and the entire property was wrongly included in his holding. ( 4 ) ). So far as the property at serial No. 6 is concerned, it has been included in the holding of the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner did not produce any proof regarding the existence of the constructed property prior to coming into force of the Act. It is not in dispute that the sale deed with respect to the said property was on record. Shri nanavaty for the petitioner has shown to me a copy of that document. It was also shown to Shri Chhaya for the respondents and it is agreed that a copy of the very same document was on the record of the case. It transpires therefrom that the property was purchased in the name of one partnership firm in the name and style of Poline Industries (the Firm for convenience ). The petitioner was a partner therein. It has clearly been averred in that document that the original owner had raised construction for industrial purposes thereon after obtaining the building permission bearing No. 0892 dt. 8th November, 1967. It also transpires from the said document that it was amenable to municipal taxation and education cess. In that view of the matter, there was no reason for respondent No. 1 to doubt the existence of the constructed property on the date of coming into force of the act. Such constructed property for industrial purposes will have to be excluded from the petitioners holding in view of Section 4 (9) of the Act even if it is regarded to be the petitioners property. ( 5 ) ). Such constructed property for industrial purposes will have to be excluded from the petitioners holding in view of Section 4 (9) of the Act even if it is regarded to be the petitioners property. ( 5 ) ). So far as the property at serial No. 5 is concerned, the petitioners one-third share therein has not been believed only on the ground that the document did not clearly specify as such. It is not in dispute that the sale document in that case was also on record. It transpires therefrom that the said property was purchased by the petitioner in the company of one Ramji Chaku and Karsan Uka. It was nobodys case that they formed a partnership for the purpose of purchasing the said property. They would therefore be co-owners thereof. It is true that the document does not specify each co-owners share therein. However, in view of the relevant provisions contained in Section 45 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882, in the absence of specification of the share of each co-owner, all the co-owners can be said to be holding such property in equal share. The Division Bench of this Court in its ruling in the case of Chhaganlal Trikamdas Thakkar vs. Competent authority, Rajkot, reported in 1994 (1) Gujarat Current Decisions at page 1 has held that co-owners are not an association of persons within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioners share therein ought to have been taken to be only its one-third and the entire area ought not to have been included in the petitioners holding. The petitioners share therein would be 171 square metres. The excess included in his holding would be to the tune of 342. 26 square metres. ( 6 ) ). In view of my aforesaid discussion, the property at serial No. 6 as mentioned at internal page 4 of the impugned order at Annexure-A to this petition deserves to be excluded from the holding and for the property at serial No. 5 the area to be included in the petitioners holding would be 171 square metres as against 513. 26 square metres shown therein. The petitioners holding is thus found to be inflated by 698. 26 square metres. In that view of the matter, the petitioners total holding would be to the tune of 1875. 71 square metres. 26 square metres shown therein. The petitioners holding is thus found to be inflated by 698. 26 square metres. In that view of the matter, the petitioners total holding would be to the tune of 1875. 71 square metres. The ceiling limit fixed for the urban agglomeration of Rajkot under the Act is 1500 square metres. The holding of the petitioner can be said to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 375. 71 square metres. ( 7 ) ). In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned order at annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure-B to this petition cannot be sustained in law in toto. It deserves to be modified by declaring that the petitioners holding is in excess of the ceiling limit by 375. 71 square metres. The matter deserves to be remanded to respondent No. 1 for preparation of the final statement under Section 9 (1) of the Act in the light of this judgment of mine after giving an opportunity to the petitioner for selection of the land to be surrendered as the excess land. On preparation of the final statement, the petitioner shall be required to surrender the excess land without any demur. ( 8 ) ). In the result, this petition is partly accepted to the aforesaid extent. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 herein) on 1st December, 1983 at Annexure-A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on llth September, 1987 in Appeal No. Rajkot-16 of 1964 at Annexure-B to this petition is modified by declaring the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 375. 71 square metres. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 for taking further action in the light of this judgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. .