M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application is revealing the plight of the petitioner claiming property rights under the Hindu Succession Act and yet not considered as a heir while deciding the matters under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the ULC Act for short ). The petitioners father Haribhai purchased the land in question in the year 1951. Later on he died and in the year 1960 the land was mutated in the revenue records in the name of his two sons in the same year. Her two brothers filled in the Form No. 1 under Section 6 of the ULC Act and in that Form the petitioner was also named however the Competent Authority had not issued any notice to the petitioner and passed the order on 30th November 1983 about of the land which was declared by the two brothers in Form no. 1 under Section 6 Against the order of the Competent Authority an appeal was preferred and the appellate authority sustained the claim of two brothers to have separate ceiling units and thus 3000 sq. mtrs. of land was found to be within the ceiling limits and 1500 sq. mtrs. of land was given to each brother. The claim of widow of Haribhai i. e. the mother of the petitioner and her brothers namely Bhikhabhai and Fatehsinh was rejected. In these proceedings relating to the declaration filed by two brothers no contention was raised regarding the alleged rights of Babuben i. e. the present petitioner. The petitioners case is that her father Haribhai had died leaving behind him his widow two sons and the present petitioner as his legal heirs and all of them had equal rights in the land left by deceased Haribhai as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners claim of share in the land left behind by her deceased father i. e. in the land bearing Survey No. 377 admeasuring 6379 sq. mtrs. of village Savad in question. When she came to know that the declaration filed by her two brothers had been finalised without any notice to her she herself filed declaration under Section 6 in respect of the aforesaid land claiming her share. It is the case of the petitioner that she had filed the declaration on 15th April 1986. mtrs. of village Savad in question. When she came to know that the declaration filed by her two brothers had been finalised without any notice to her she herself filed declaration under Section 6 in respect of the aforesaid land claiming her share. It is the case of the petitioner that she had filed the declaration on 15th April 1986. Thereupon a draft statement was served upon her as required under Section 8 (3) of the ULC Act on 13 June 1986 and she had lodged her objection on 28 June 1986. She had based her claim under the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and that the Form was filed on that basis. The Competent Authority came to the conclusion that as initially two brothers of the petitioner had filled in the forms and it had already passed the order on 30th November 1993 in that declaration whereby the claim of the mother was rejected and two brothers were given separate units of 1500 sq. The Competent Authority came to the conclusion that as initially two brothers of the petitioner had filled in the forms and it had already passed the order on 30th November 1993 in that declaration whereby the claim of the mother was rejected and two brothers were given separate units of 1500 sq. mtrs of land each it was now left no power to reconsider the matter and accordingly the form submitted by the petitioner was filed under Section 8 (4) of the Act by its order dated 23rd November 1986 Against this order of the Competent Authority passed on 23rd November 1986 the petitioner preferred Appeal No 8 of 1988 before the Urban Land Tribunal The Tribunal by its order dated 18th February 1988 dismissed the appeal The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th February 1988 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal read with the Competent Authoritys order dated 23rd November 1986 ( 2 ) IT appears that in this matter pending admission ad interim relief was granted by this Court in terms of para 9 (c) restraining the respondents from acting further on the basis of the order passed by the Competent Authority and not to take possession of the land i. e. the land at village Savad bearing Survey No 337 till the petition is finally heard and decided It further appears that this Special Civil Application was filed on 31st March 1988 and during the pendency of the petition a Notification dated 12th May 1988 had been issued under Section 10 (3) of the Act and this notification was published in the Government Gazette on 26 1988 The petitioner therefore sought an amendment challenging the aforesaid notification and the amendment was granted by this Court and as per the amendment in prayer Clause- (f) was included praying that the notification dated 12th May 1988-Annexure-C may also be quashed ( 3 ) NO return has been filed in this Special Civil Application ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has produced a certified copy of Form No I in which the declaration had been filed by the two brothers of the petitioner The same is ordered to be taken on record There is no dispute rather it is clear on the basis of this certified copy that the name of the petitioner had also been mentioned in this Form No I under Section 6 which had been filed by the two brothers in respect of the land in question One of the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that once the name of the petitioner was duly mentioned in Form No 1 under Section 6 which had been filed by her brothers under Rule 5 (2) (ii) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules 1976 the notice was required to be given to the petitioner Rule 5 is reproduced as under 5 all other persons so far as may be known who have or are likely to have any claim to or interest in the ownership or possession or both of the vacant lands Thus it is obvious that the petitioner was certainly a person known to have claim to or interest in the ownership of the vacant land in question ( 5 ) IT is clearly a case in which the Form No 1 under Section 6 was not filed by the petitioner within the period prescribed under the Rules but she is basing her claim on the basis of the rights under the Hindu Succession Act and it is her case that she came to know about these urban land ceiling proceedings only in the year 1986 and no notice under Rule 5 had been served upon her whereas the concerned authority was under an obligation to issue such notice. Looking to the case of hardship with the petitioner and that the notice had not been issued to her under Rule 5 I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Competent Authority to consider the whole matter de novo after issuing the notice to her two brothers as also to her mother and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law ( 6 ) THE upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that this Special Civil Application partly succeeds The impugned orders dated 18th February 1988 passed by the Urban Land Tribunal and the Competent Authoritys order dated 23rd November 1986 are hereby quashed and set aside The notification dated 12th May 1988 which has been issued under Section 10 (3) during the pendency of the petition although the petitioner was protected by an interim order passed by this Court is also quashed and set aside and the same will not come in the way of the Competent Authority in passing the appropriate orders in accordance with law and the Competent Authority is directed to take up the whole exercise with all the relevant Forms in which the declaration was made in Form No. 1 under Section 6 and to decide the entire matter after due notice to the petitioner her two brothers and her mother and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All the parties as well as the State Government shall be entitled to raise all the objections factual as well as legal before the Competent Authority when the matter is taken up. The Competent Authority shall carry out the directions as aforesaid and decide the matter and pass final orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date the writ is served. This Special Civil Application is allowed as indicated above and the Rule is made absolute as aforesaid. The interim order is not required to be operative any more and the same is therefore vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule made Absolute. .