JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra M. Patel, learned advocate for petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Patel, learned AGP for respondents. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that: "6(A) To quash and set aside the judgment and order of the Mamlatdar & ALT dated 23rd March, 1993 passed in Ceiling Case No. 236 of 1992/remand by the Mamlatdar and ALT, Valsad at Annexure-D. Judgment and Order passed by Deputy Collector, Navari, dated 7th July, 1993 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 23/93 at Annexure- E and Judgment and order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 24th April, 2001 in Revision Application No. TEN.BA.79/94 at Annexure-F". 3. In present petition, the petitioner has narrated factual background in Paragraphs-4(1) to 4(9), which read thus: "4(1) The petitioners say that Chhitabhai Lalabhai who was the father of deceased Bhikhiben and Bhankiben was holding the agricultural land at village Bamanvada in the year 1927. He has no son and he has only two daughters i.e. Bhikhiben and Bhankiben. Bhikhiben was born on 2.1.1923. The petitioner produced herewith the school leaving certificate issued by the school authority, which shows that the date of birth of deceased Bhikhiben Chhitabhai as 2.1.1923 and the date of leaving the school is also mentioned as 9.3.1931. The copy of the school leaving certificate is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE- A to this petition. (2) The petitioners say that father of deceased Bhikhiben had expired around 1927. He has no son and having aforesaid two daughters namely Bhikhiben and Bhankiben. After the death of her father, name of Bhikhiben and Bhankiben were entered in the revenue record from 1928-29 on wards represented by her mother Lakhiben as they were minors. The petitioners hereby produced the village forms Nos. 7, 7A and 7X12 of survey Nos. 61, 62, 98 and 106 at Annexure B1, B2, B3 and B4 respectively. The copies of the village forms Nos. 7, 7A and 7X12 of Survey Nos. 61,62,98 and 106 are annexed herewith and are marked as ANNEXURE -B1, B2, B3 and B4 collectively to their petition. Since 1928-29 the names of Bhikhiben and Bhankiben were entered in the revenue record as owners and occupants. The petitioners say that thereafter, Bhankiben has relinquished her share in favour of Bhikhiben. 7, 7A and 7X12 of Survey Nos. 61,62,98 and 106 are annexed herewith and are marked as ANNEXURE -B1, B2, B3 and B4 collectively to their petition. Since 1928-29 the names of Bhikhiben and Bhankiben were entered in the revenue record as owners and occupants. The petitioners say that thereafter, Bhankiben has relinquished her share in favour of Bhikhiben. Thus, Bhikhiben has inherited all these properties of her father total admeasuring 28 acre and 26 gunthas running in Khata Nos. 79. The petitioners say that on perusing the village forms No. 7, 7A and 7X12 given by the authorities, it is clear that name of Bhikhiben and Bankiben were in the revenue record from year 1928-29 as owners of the property. 3. The petitioners say that marriage of Bhikhiben had taken place with Chhotubhai Gopalji in the year 1938. At that time of marriage, deceased Bhikhiben was the owner and occupant of agricultural lands at village Bamanwada as stated above, which she possessed as Stridhana and because of her marriage, she has not lost her right over the said lands. She was also in possession of the said land after her marriage and her name was shown in the revenue record as owner of the land. The petitioners say that from village form Nos. 7, 7A and 7X12 produced by the petitioners clearly show that the said lands are running in the name of Bhikhiben even before her marriage and after her marriage. 4(4) The petitioners say that husband of Bhikhiben i.e. father of present petitioners Chhotubhai Gopalbhai Patel was holding 15 acre and 31 gunthas of land at village Bamanwada in Khata No. 32 on 1.4.1976. The petitioners say that her father Chhotubhai Gopalbhai had expired on 7.5.1977 and after his death, all the properties belonging to Khata No. 32 was transferred in favour of deceased Bhikhiben. The copy of the death certificate of Chhotubhai Gopalbhai dated 7.5.1977 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE C to this petition. The petitioners say that thereafter during the pending proceedings, mother of the petitioners i.e. Bhikhiben had also expired on 20.10.1985. 5. The petitioners say that thus, both lands were running in the name of deceased Bhikhiben and her husband Chhotubhai separately in separate Khatas. The petitioners say that thereafter during the pending proceedings, mother of the petitioners i.e. Bhikhiben had also expired on 20.10.1985. 5. The petitioners say that thus, both lands were running in the name of deceased Bhikhiben and her husband Chhotubhai separately in separate Khatas. The petitioners say that after the coming into force the Amending Act of 2/1974 with effect form 1.54.1976, the proceedings under Sections 20 and 21 of the Agricultural Lands and Ceiling Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act" in short) have been initiated and Mamlatdar and ALT had declared certain lands as surplus lands and against the said action of the Mamlatdar and ALT, the appeals and revision were filed. 6. The petitioners say that ultimately, the Mamlatdar and ALT by his last order dated 23rd March, 1993 was pleased to hold club together the independent land of deceased Bhikhiben, which she has possessed from her childhood and before marriage with the property of her husband in the Ceiling Proceedings and he has held that both of them jointly holding 60 acres and 31 gunthas of Jiyarat Land and he has declared 24 acre and 34.5 gunthas as the surplus land. He has negatived the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that the property belongs to their mother Bhikhiben, which she possessed from her child hood at the age of 4 years from her father and before marriage and therefore, it cannot be clubbed together with the property of husband under the Ceilings Act. 7. The petitioners say that they have also contended that present three petitioners are the three daughters of the deceased Bhikhiben and Chhotubhai and therefore, they are entitled to get land but instead of this submission, the Mamlatdar and ALT by his judgment and award dated 23rd March, 1993 was pleased to negative all the contentions and he has declared 24 acre and 34.5 gunthas as surplus land. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1993 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE -D to this petition. 8. The petitioners say that the petitioners have preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1993 before the Deputy Collector, Navsari challenging the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1993. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1993 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE -D to this petition. 8. The petitioners say that the petitioners have preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1993 before the Deputy Collector, Navsari challenging the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1993. The petitioners have contended before the Deputy Collector that the land of her mother, which was Stridhana property which she has possessed form her child hood at the age of 4 years and before marriage cannot be clubbed together with the property of her husband Chhotubhai in the present proceedings. They have also submitted that present petitioners are the only daughters and they are legal heirs and representatives of deceased Bhikhiben and Chhotubhai and therefore, they are also entitled to hold one unit under the Ceiling Act. Both these contentions were not accepted by the Deputy Collector and he by his judgment and order dated 7th July, 1993 was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by present petitioners. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 7th July, 1993 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-E to this petition. 9. The petitioners say that being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred Revision Application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being Revision Application No. TEN.BA.79/84. The Petitioners have contended before the Tribunal that lands of deceased Bikhiben who is her mother cannot be clubbed together with the lands of their father Chhotubhai under the Act as deceased Bikhiben was holding the said land i.e. land admeasuring 28 acre and 26 gunthas of village Bamanvada and she is owner and occupant of the said land since childhood and before marriage. This is not a land which she has acquired after the marriage and, therefore, under the Ceiling Act, land which was a property under Stridhana and she has her own right cannot be clubbed together. They have further contended that present three petitioners are the three daughters of deceased Bhikhiben and Chhotubhai and they are entitled to hold one unit under the Act as the daughters have right in inherited property of family. Unfortunately, all these contentions were not considered by the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2001 was pleased to dismiss the said revision application filed by the petitioners. Unfortunately, all these contentions were not considered by the learned Tribunal and the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 24th April, 2001 was pleased to dismiss the said revision application filed by the petitioners. The copy of the said judgment and order dated 24th April, 2001 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-F to this petition." 4. The respondents have opposed the petition. The respondent Mamlatdar has filed an affidavit dated 5.5.2003 and stated, inter alia, that: "4. It is submitted that the late father of the present petitioners, Chhotubhai Gopalbhai was holding the land in account No. 32 admeasuring 28 acre 26 gunthas. The mother of the petitioners Bikhiben was holding the land in account No. 79 admeasuring 28 acre 26 gunthas. The total land was admeasuring 44 acre- 23 gunthas as on 24/1/71. The father of the petitioners, Chhotubhai expired on 7/5/77 and the mother of the petitioners expired on 20/10/85. The names of the petitioners were entered into the revenue record. 5. It is submitted that during the period from 24/1/71 to 1/4/76, the petitioners were not holding the disputed property. The Amending Act came into effect in February 1974. It is submitted that under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960, the land was grouped together for the purpose of this act. The total land was grouped together was applied as if said land had been hold by Chhotubhai. The father and the mother of the petitioners were residing in joint family. The father of the petitioners was managing the land admeasuring 44 acre - 23 gunthas. Therefore in view of Section 6(1) of the said Act, Mamlatdar passed order on 7/7/93 whereby the Mamlatdar told that Chhotubhai Gopalbhai was managing the land. He was entitled to one unit as provided under Section 6 of the said Act. As per the definition given under the Act while deciding the case, Section 6(1) was involved. The land was grouped together. The entire land was held by deceased Chhotubhai Gopalbhai. It was land in excess. Deceased Chhotubhai Gopalbhai was entitled to one unit. Therefore, the order passed by the Mamlatdar was legal, just and proper. 6. It is submitted that the parent of the petitioners was alive from 2/4/71 to 1/4/76. They were residing together as husband and wife. It was a joint property. It was land in excess. Deceased Chhotubhai Gopalbhai was entitled to one unit. Therefore, the order passed by the Mamlatdar was legal, just and proper. 6. It is submitted that the parent of the petitioners was alive from 2/4/71 to 1/4/76. They were residing together as husband and wife. It was a joint property. The deceased Chhotubhai Gopalbhai was managing the land. The parent of the petitioners did not obtain any decree of divorce under the Hindu Law. Therefore, as per Section 6(1) of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 deceased Chhotubhai was entitled to only one unit. In this view of the fact the issue of Stree-dhan is not relevant. 7. The present petitioners approached before the Deputy Collector under Section 35 of the said Act, which was rejected by the order dated 7/7/93. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioners preferred revision before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The main controversy in this litigation in that the land is a Stree-dhan and therefore, it may not be considered for the purpose of the said land. The Revenue Tribunal rejected the revision application on 24/4/01. This order is legal just and proper. 8. It is submitted that on 1st April 1976 the petitioners were adult. On 1st April 1976 the petitioners were married and were residing at their matrimonial home. Under the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960, the crucial date is 1/4/76. On 1/4/76 their parent was alive. The father expired on 7/5/77 and the mother expired on 20/10/85 i.e. after 1/4/76. The present petitioners were not holding the land for the purpose of deciding the ceiling. The land was grouped together as provided under Section 6(1). The petitioners were not the owners and occupiers." 5. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner emphasised one of the contentions as the principal ground to justify and support the challenge against the impugned order. 5.1 He submitted that the mother of the present petitioners owned and held certain parcel of land before her marriage and after her marriage the said land continued to be of her ownership and remained in her possession as "Stridhan". 5.2 Taking the factual aspect further, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that such property could not be clubbed together with the holding of her husband and other family members. 5.2 Taking the factual aspect further, learned advocate for petitioner submitted that such property could not be clubbed together with the holding of her husband and other family members. 5.3 According to learned advocate for petitioner, the said parcel of land, should have been treated as separate holding and the mother of present petitioner should have been considered eligible for holding the said land as separate unit. 5.4 He further submitted that if the calculation of holding is made in such manner then there would not be excess land and the findings of the authorities and the tribunal would not survive. 5.5 According to learned advocate for petitioner, the said contention has not been properly appreciated and/or dealt with by the authority as well as learned Tribunal. 6. Mr. Patel, learned AGP opposed the said submission and contended that in view of provision under Section 6(2) of the Act, the said contention is not sustainable because the holding of spouse and other family members, except in case of joint family, have to be clubbed together. 7. At this stage, Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is defective in view of the fact that though the said contention was specifically raised by the petitioner, learned Tribunal has neither discussed/dealt with the said contention, nor any findings and any conclusion with reference to the said contention is recorded by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner also emphasised the submission that the petitioners have been raising said contention since the inception of the proceedings before Mamlatdar/Deputy Collector and the said contention was raised before the Collector as well as before the learned Tribunal. However, learned Tribunal has failed to deal with and decide the said contention. 8. The learned AGP could not dispute the said submission. 9. In view of the said submission, it has emerged that present petition can be disposed of at this stage in light of the said limited contention and it would not be necessary to enter into the merits of the other contentions at this stage. 10. On reading the order dated 24.04.2001 passed by learned Tribunal, it comes out that the petitioners had raised the said contention even before learned Tribunal. 10.1 Reference of the said contention is found in paragraph No. 4 of impugned order. 10. On reading the order dated 24.04.2001 passed by learned Tribunal, it comes out that the petitioners had raised the said contention even before learned Tribunal. 10.1 Reference of the said contention is found in paragraph No. 4 of impugned order. 10.2 However, though learned Tribunal has taken note of the said contention and also recorded the said contention in the order, any discussion with regard to the said contention and more particularly any findings and decision with reference to the said contention are not found in the order. 10.3 In Paragraph-5 of the order, learned Tribunal has recorded submission by the opponent and paragraph-6, learned Tribunal has recorded the observations. However, any observation, much less any findings and conclusion/decision with reference to the said contention is not found in the order. 11. Learned Tribunal ought to have dealt with said contention and recorded its findings and conclusion and decision with supporting reasons. 11.1 However, the order does not reflect any discussion or findings with reference to the said contention. 11.2 Therefore, the impugned order is, to that extent, unsustainable and deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Tribunal. 12. Learned AGP could not point out any discussion with regard to the said contention of the petitioners and he also could not point out from the order the conclusion and findings by learned Tribunal with reference to the said contention. 13. Therefore, following order is passed: "a. The impugned order dated 24.04.2001 is set aside on the said limited ground and matter is remanded to learned Tribunal for fresh order. b. Learned Tribunal shall hear the parties and pass fresh speaking and reasoned order recording its own reasons and conclusion/decision with regard to the contention raised by the petitioners. c. It is clarified that in light of the fact that the learned advocate for the petitioners contended that the contention is not dealt with and any findings are not recorded by the learned Tribunal, this Court has not entered into merits of the said contention or any other contention and the matter is disposed of on the said limited ground. d. Therefore, present order shall not be construed as expression of opinion or views of the Court with reference to the said contention and the learned Tribunal will deal with and decide the contention independently in accordance with law." With aforesaid clarification, the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Disposed off