VASANTILAL THAKORDAS MALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(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 & 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.