( 1 ) THE petitioner was one of the partners of the firm named Madhusudan Oil Mill Rajkot. The firm had purchased a piece of land admeasuring 2465. 10 sq. mtrs. by sale deed dated 27/10/1970 The land is situated within the limits of Urban Agglomeration Area of Rajkot town. On coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (the Act for short) the firm filled in the form under Section 6 (1) of the Act. Before the competent authority it was contended that the partnership document dated 16/04/1971 was executed and as per this partnership deed individual partners were the co-owners of the land in question. Therefore individual holding of different partners was required to be taken into consideration and on this basis no one held the land in excess of the ceiling limit. The competent authority accepted the submission and ordered to file the form as per his order dated 10/10/1980

( 2 ) THE Government in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act issued show-cause notice dated 13/02/1984 and called upon the firm to show cause as to why the case should not be taken in revision. It was alleged that the firm was a person as defined under the Act. Therefore the holding of the firm was required to be taken into consideration and not that of individual partners. After hearing the parties the Government held that the total holding of the firm was 2465. 10 sq. mtrs. and the ceiling limit for Rajkot Agglomeration area under the Act was 1500 sq. mtrs. Therefore it was declared that land admeasuring 965 sq. mtrs. was in excess of the ceiling limit and the same was declared as surplus. This order was passed by the Government on 14/03/1988.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the Government. The order is produced at Annexure C to the petition. The petitioner also prays for declaration that the definition of person occurring in Section 2 (i) of the Act be declared ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore illegal and void.

( 4 ) ON facts it is contended that the purchase of the land by document dated 27/10/1970 was by individual partners and it was not by the firm. The sale document is relied upon in support of this contention. In the document names of all the partners have been mentioned. Therefore it is submitted that the sale should be considered in favour of the partners. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the document is in favour of the partnership firm called Madhusudan Oil Mill. If the sale were not in favour of the partnership firm the name of the firm would not have been written at all in the sale document. All the individuals whose names are mentioned in the document have been described in their individual capacity. The entire reading of the document shows that the sale of the land is in favour of the partnership firm. Different small pieces of the land by defined shares have not been sold to different individuals. Moreover the firm itself has filled in the form under Section 6 (1) of the Act. Thus having regard to contents of the document and to all other relevant facts and circumstances it is evident that the document is in favour of the firm and it is not in favour of different capacity. Except the sale document no other material is relied upon to show that the sale was in favour of the individual partners. In our opinion the decision taken by the Government that the sale was in favour of the firm is eminently just and proper. This decision is not required to be interfered with in exercise of power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the definition of person occurring in Section 2 (i) of the Act should be understood to mean a group of individual partners. In his submission if it is not read in this manner the definition would be unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore violative of the provisions of Articl