( 1 ) THE petition arises out of an order passed by the State Government under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he petitioners were carrying on business in partnership which came into existence on 8/02/1963 There were changes in the constitution of the firm from time to time. Ultimately on 25/12/1974 a partnership deed was executed which is produced at Annexure E to the petition. As per the partnership deed on record the capital of the partnership form was to the tune of Rs. 2280 0 One minor Master Shailesh S. Sheth was also admitted to the benefit of partnership. This partnership has been dissolution as per the deed of dissolution dated 2/04/1981 The deed of dissolution is produced at Annexure All to the petition. The deed of partnership as well as the deed of dissolution have not been registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. It may not be obligatory to get the partnership deed and the deed of dissolution registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act be having regard to the facts and circumstances on the case this circumstance has some relevance and therefore it is necessary that it may be course in mind. It appears that the stamp paper on which the partnership deed as well as the deed of dissolution are executed are not in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Stamp Act. Probably the stamp papers utilised are as per (he provisions of Tamil Nadu Stamp Act. As stated in the partnership aced the business of the firm was to be carried on at 22 First Line Beach Madras-1.

( 2 ) ON 17/09/1976 the petitioner firm filed in a form under sec. 6 of the Act. The competent authority under the Act passed an order dated 6/03/1980 which his produced at Annexure B to the petition. By this order the competent authority held as follows:"on examining the evidence produced on record there are 14 partners in the firm Calculating the land falling to their shale proportionately each one gets land to his share below the ceiling limit. Therefore in this case there is no question of declaring any land to be in excess of the ceiling. Hence it is ordered that the case be removed from the file".

( 3 ) AS per the deed for dissolution the firm held 36 plots of land in all admeasuring 22 84. 04 sq. yds. which is equivalent to 18 464. 77 sq. mt. in urban agglomeration area of Rajkot Rajkot is a C category town where the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act is 1500 sq. mt. The plots held by the petitioner-firm were forming part of Survey No. 74 and 75 of village Nana Mava. In this area no person can hold land in excess of 1500 sq. mt. which is the ceiling limit prescribed under the Act. Therefore if the provisions of the Act are held applicable and if the firm is considered to be a person then the land in excess of 1500 sq. mt. will be the excess land i. e. beyond the ceiling limit Thus deducting 1500 sq. mt. from the total land holdings of 18 464. 77 sq. mt. the remaining land of 16 964. 77 sq. mt. will be the excess land which can be taken over by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of the Act

( 4 ) THE Government issued notice dated. 5/10/1982 (Annexure - A to the petition ). and informed the firm of the petitioners that for the reasons stated in the notice it has been decided to take into revision the case disposed of by the competent authority. As date of hearing was fixed on 19/10/1952 The firm was also informed that pending the decision of the revisions no construction whatsoever be made on the land without the permission of the State Government. It is not clear from the record of the case as to what happened on the date of hearing. However it is clear that the petition is filed on 25/12/1982 Later on this Court has granted interim relief and has restrained the Government from implementing or proceeding further with the notice dated 5/10/1982 till the hearing and final disposal of the petition.

( 5 ) THE