( 1 ) THE order passed by the Competent Authority at Rajkot (respondent No. 1 herein) under S. 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulations) Act, 1976 (the Ceiling Act for brief) as affirmed in appeal by the order passed by the Urban Land Tribunal at Ahmedabad (respondent No. 2 herein) under S. 33 thereof is under challenge in each of these petitions. The petitioners of Special Civil Application Nos. 6273 of 1988 and 6275 of 1988 (the second and the fourth petitions respectively for convenience) are partners in the petitioner-firm in each of the petitions bearing Special Civil Application No. 5845 of 1988 (the first petition for convenience) and Special Civil Application No. 6274 of 1988 (the third petition for convenience ). The petitioner of the fourth petition is also a partner in the firm who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8951 of 1989 (the fifth petition for convenience ). Certain lands are commonly involved in all these petitions. Common questions of law and fact are found arising in all these petitions. I have, therefore, thought it fit to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment of mine.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to all these petitions move in a narrow compass. The petitioner in each case filed the declaration in the prescribed form under S. 6 (1) of the Ceiling Act with respect to each ones holding within the urban agglomeration of Rajkot. Each form was duly processed by respondent No. 1. After observing necessary formalities under S. 8 of the Ceiling Act, by his order passed under sub-S. (4) thereof, respondent No. 1 declared the holding of each petitioner to be in excess of the ceiling limit as mentioned in the order. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by respondent No. 1 in each case is at Annexure A to each petition. It may be mentioned at this stage that no common order with respect to all the declarations was passed by respondent No. 1. Each petitioner carried the matter in appeal before respondent No. 2 under S. 33 of the Ceiling Act. In each case the appeal came to be dismissed. A copy of the appellate order is at Annexure B to each petition. Each petitioner has thereupon moved this Court by means of his each respective petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for questioning the correctness of the order at Annexure A to each petition as affirmed in appeal by the order at Annexure B thereto.

( 3 ) IT is not necessary to take up each case separately. The reason therefor is quite simple. One parcel of land bearing survey No. 440 though plotted out in different sub-plots is practically common in all these cases. I have, therefore, thought it fit to deal with all these matters collectively.

( 4 ) SO far as the petitioners of the first and the third petitions are concerned, the partnership in each case is not believed only on the ground that the deed of partnership was unregistered. I think that conclusion on the part of respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained in law. There is no provision in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (the Partnership Act for brief) to the effect that non-registration of the partnership document would result in disbelieving of the existence of the partnership itself. It appears that respondent No. 1 entertained an erroneous impression based on S. 69 thereof. It would bar a suit by the partnership firm with respect to the claims mentioned therein if it is unregistered. The aforesaid statutory provision does not render any partnership without existence if the partnership document is not registered. That conclusion of respondent No. 1 as reflected in the order an Annexure a to the first and the third petitions cannot be sustained in law.

( 5 ) IT would be a trite law to say that, if the partnership firm would be entitled to a separate unit under the Ceiling Act, the share of a partner in the unit given to the partnership firm will have certainly to be included in the individual holding of the partner in view of S. 4 (5) of the