JUDGMENT : A.N. Divecha, J. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 herein) on 10th February 1994 as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) on 22nd March 1996 in Appeal No. Rajkot-20 of 1994 is under challenge in this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India. By his impugned order, respondent No. 1 declared the petitioner's holding to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 18048 square meters. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner filed his declaration in the prescribed form under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for brief) with respect to a house and a parcel of land bearing survey No. 83 situated within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. It was duly processed by respondent No. 1. After observing necessary formalities under section 8 of the Act, by his order passed under sub-section (4) thereof, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of the petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit by 18048 square meters. 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-20 of 1994. By the order passed on 22nd March 1996 in the aforesaid appeal, respondent No. 2 dismissed it. Its copy is at Annexure A to this petition. The aggrieved petitioner has thereupon approached this Court by means of this petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 1 on 10th February 1994 as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure A to this petition. 3. As rightly submitted by learned Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner, the house property in existence prior to coming into force of the Act deserves to be excluded from the petitioner's holding in view of the binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Gupta v. State of West Bengal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1567 . It appears from the appellate order that respondent No. 1 has included the constructed property in the petitioner's holding. That could not have been done. It ought to have been excluded from his holding. 4. It appears from the appellate order that respondent No. 1 has included the constructed property in the petitioner's holding. That could not have been done. It ought to have been excluded from his holding. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner has submitted that there was no master plan in existence with respect to the land in question on commencement of the Act and agricultural operations were in fact carried on therein. Relying on 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 , he has submitted that the agricultural land should be excluded from the petitioner's holding. As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents has urged that there is no material on record to show or to suggest that the land in question was actually put to agricultural use at the time of the commencement of the Act. Besides, runs his submission, the attention of the authorities below was not focused on this aspect of the case. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner had filed his declaration on behalf of the family and the aforesaid agricultural land was shown therein as belonging to the joint Hindu family. Learned Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioner has submitted that separate units for the major sons ought to have been given to the petitioner. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura for the respondents informs me that the concerned official from the office of respondent No. 1 is present with the record of the case. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Sompura has fairly shown the record to me. It transpires therefrom that the petitioner did file his declaration on behalf of the family and the agricultural land was shown to be the joint Hindu family property. The land was shown to be used for agricultural purposes therein. 7. Since the attention of the authorities below could not be focused on the aforesaid binding ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Atia Mohammadi Begum (supra), it would be desirable to remand the case to respondent No. 1 for restoration of the proceeding to file and for his fresh decision according to law with respect to the following three questions. (i) Was any master plan answering its definition contained in section 2(h) of the Act in existence with respect to the land in question? (ii) What was the situation of the agricultural land involved in this case therein if it was in existence? (iii) Was the land in question in fact used for agricultural purposes on the date of coming into force of the Act? It would be open at that stage for the petitioners to establish that the agricultural land belonged to the joint Hindu family and his major sons would be entitled to separate units. It would also be open to the petitioner to bring relevant material on record showing that the constructed property was in existence in an authorised manner. 8. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 on 10th February 1994 as affirmed in appeal by the appellate order at Annexure A to this petition cannot be sustained in law. It has to be quashed and set aside. The matter deserves to be remanded to respondent No. 1 for restoration of the proceeding to file and for his fresh decision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. 9. In the result, this petition is accepted. The order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 herein) on 10th February 1994 under section 8(4) of the Act as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad on 22nd March 1996 in Appeal No. Rajkot-20 of 1994 at Annexure A to this petition is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 for restoration of the proceeding to file and for his fresh decision according to law in the light of this judgment of mine. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute.