A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the Competent authority at Baroda (respondent No. 2 herein) on 12th August 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act, 1976 ("the Act" for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 1 herein) on 30th January 1988 in Appeal No. Baroda-244 of 1983 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 2 declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 12057 square metres. The petitioners have also challenged in this petition consequential actions pursuant to the impugned orders like inter alia the issue of the notification under Section 10 (3) of the Act. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioners filed their declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6 (1) of the Act with respect to their joint holding within the urban agglomeration of Baroda. It appears that the petitioners also applied for permission under Section 21 (1) of the Act with respect to their holding of the lands shown in their aforesaid declaration. By his order passed on 9th August 1979, respondent no. 2 rejected it. Its copy is at Annexure c to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 3 under Section 33 of the act. It came to be registered as Appeal no. 5-6 of 1979. It was heard along with an allied appeal. By the common appellate order passed in the aforesaid appeals on 21st May 1980, respondent No. 2 dismissed both the appeals including that preferred by the petitioners. Its copy is at annexure D to this petition. Thereafter the declaration in the prescribed form filed by the petitioners under Section 6 (1) of the act was processed by respondent No. 2. By the order passed on 12th August 1983 under Section 8 (4) of the Act, respondent no. 2 declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 12057 square metres. Its copy is at annexure A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 1 under Section 33 of the Act. 2 declared the holding of the petitioners to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 12057 square metres. Its copy is at annexure A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 1 under Section 33 of the Act. It came to be registered as Appeal no. Baroda-244 of 1983. By the order passed on 30th January 1988 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure B to this petition. The aggrieved petitioners have thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure A to this petition as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure B to this petition as also all consequential actions pursuant thereto including the notification under section 10 (3) of the Act. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri M. C. Bhatt for the petitioners has urged that the lands of the petitioners were used for agricultural purposes on the date of coming into force of the Act and no master plan answering its definition contained in Section 2 (h) of the act was in existence on the date of coming into force thereof, and as such the lands of the petitioners deserve to be excluded from their holding in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U. P. and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 2465 . As against this, learned Assistant Government pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents has urged that there is no evidence on record to show or to suggest that the lands in question were used for agricultural purposes on the date of coming into force of the Act. ( 4 ) IN order to assist this Court, learned assistant Government Pleader Shri sompura has kept one official from the office of respondent No. 2 present in this court with the record of the case. It contains the original declaration in the prescribed form filed by the petitioners. So far as the lands in question are concerned, they are shown to be vacant land even though the relevant column on page 4 thereof require them to state whether it was vacant land, land with building thereon or agricultural land. It contains the original declaration in the prescribed form filed by the petitioners. So far as the lands in question are concerned, they are shown to be vacant land even though the relevant column on page 4 thereof require them to state whether it was vacant land, land with building thereon or agricultural land. As pointed out hereinabove, below that column the petitioners have indicated that it was "vacant land". It would mean that no agricultural operations were carried on therein on the date of coming into force of the Act. It may be noted that the declaration in the prescribed form under section 6 (1) of the Act is required to be filed with respect to holding of the landholder as on 17th February 1976. In that view of the matter and in view of what is stated by the petitioners themselves below the relevant column that the lands were merely "vacant land", there is no escape from the conclusion that the lands in question were not used for agricultural purposes on the date of coming into force of the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme court in the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi begum (supra) will not come to their rescue as one of the conditions for excluding agricultural lands from the holding of the landholder is that agricultural operations were in fact carried on in the land or lands in question on the date of coming into force of the Act. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate Shri Bhatt for the petitioners has submitted that the lands in question were purchased by the petitioners in their own names under one document and they would be entitled to equal share by virtue of Section 45 of the Transfer of property Act, 1882. This submission has to be stated only to be rejected for the simple reason that in the declaration in the prescribed form under Section 6 (1) of the Act the petitioners have themselves filled in the form as a body of two individuals. In this connection, the definition of "person" contained in Section 2 (i) of the Act deserves to be referred to. The word "person" as defined therein includes a body of individuals. In that view of the mater, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners styled themselves as a body of individuals. In this connection, the definition of "person" contained in Section 2 (i) of the Act deserves to be referred to. The word "person" as defined therein includes a body of individuals. In that view of the mater, there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners styled themselves as a body of individuals. They cannot now be permitted to turn around and submit that they were not a body of individuals and they would be entitled to take shelter under Section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. ( 6 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders call for no interference by this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition, therefore, deseves to be rejected. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition fails. It is hereby rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. The ad interim relief stands vacated. Rule discharged. .