R. R. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) ORDER passed by Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of gujarat, Annexure. E, dated 19. 9. 1996 while exercising revisionai jurisdiction under Sec. 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the Act for short) setting aside the order dated 11. 4. 1989, Annexure, B, passed by the competent authority in proceedings under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act, has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the land in question is owned by Hindu Undivided Family and the competent authority held that all the members of HUF as on the date of enforcement of the Act are entitled to hold one unit and accordingly, by giving effect to the total units, the holding is not declared as excess/surplus and the Form I is filed. Almost after a period of three years, the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat, exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 34 of the Act passed the impugned order Annexure E setting aside the order passed by the competent authority. ( 3 ) AS a cardinal principal, while deciding the question of vacant land/holding in case of HUF, the total number of members of HUF as on the appointed day, that is, 17. 2. 1976 would be relevant factor, as each would get one unit as per settled law. On perusal of impugned order, it is amply clear that the revisionai authority is also in agreement with the competent authority with regard to property belonging to HUF and the membership thereof. However, has been influenced by the fact that one of the members i. e. , Thakorbhai Ranchhoddas Mali had passed away on 21. 2. 1969 and that another member i. e. , Ranchhodbhai Nathubhai passed away on 4. 9. 1974, whereby the huf would stand dissolved. According to law, death does not dissolve the HUF but simpliciter changes the number of members and their shares. Thus, even upon death of one of the members, the same status, i. e. , HUF continues and the property remains as such till partitioned. Thus, the view taken is erroneous and illegal. ( 4 ) AN identical question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of chhaganlal Trikamdas Thakkar vs. Competent Authority, 1994 (1) GCD 1 . Thus, the view taken is erroneous and illegal. ( 4 ) AN identical question arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of chhaganlal Trikamdas Thakkar vs. Competent Authority, 1994 (1) GCD 1 . The Court was called upon to decide the scope of Sec. 2 (1), that is "association of Individuals". The court held that if individuals own definite and specified shares, though acquired under or through a single source, may not come under the ambit of association or body of individuals holding the land and such individuals are tenant in common and would be entitled to one unit each. In terms the Court said that while considering the question of holding, the membership of HUF should be kept in mind as prevailing on the date of enforcement of the Act because what is required to be considered is the holding of individual on the date of enforcement of the Act and not either prior or subsequent thereto. In another matter, in the case of D. B. Kansara vs. Revenue Department, 1994 (1) glh 276 this Court took identical view holding the HUF can not be regarded as a body of individuals or association of indiviuals and each of the major coparcener in an HUF are entitiled to one separate unit on the date on which the Act came into force. In an unreported judgment of this Court (Coram: A. N. Divecha in Special Civil Application No. 2753 of 1988 decided on 6. 5. 1994, it is held that as members of joint family are not association of persons every major member therein would be entitled to a separate unit for the purpose of the Act. Despite this settled legal position, the revisional authority has taken contrary view which cannot be sustained in law. Thus, on the face of it, the impugned order annexure E dated 19. 9. 1996 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue department, Government of Gujarat, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and illegal and requires to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure E dated 19. 9. 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. Order Annexure-B dated 11. 4. 1989 passed by the competent authority, Surat, is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. .