M.P.Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are these. A statement was filed under section 6 (1) of the Act by Smt. Vishuni Devi widow of Prasad. THEreafter, the draft statement was prepared under section 8 (1) of the Act and the same was served on the person concerned with a notice inviting objections, to the said draft statement. THE objections were filed and they were decided by the Prescribed Authority under section 8 (4) of the Act by his order dated 4-7-1978, a true copy of which is Annexure I to the petition. THEreafter, an appeal was filed by the said lady's three sons and the same was allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 2-3-1982, a true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the State has now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof I have heard the learned Standing Counsel. It was contended before me that the Prescribed Authority rightly treated the case to be that of a 'family' as defined under section 2 ( f) of the Act which lays down as follows :- "Family in relation to a person, means the individual, the wife or husband, as the case may be, of such individual and their unmarried minor children." In Section 2 (1) 'person' is so defined as to include an individual, a family, a firm, a company, or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. The appellate court has recorded a finding of fact that Prasad, husband of Smt. Vishuni Devi, had died before the relevant date and that he left his widow and his three minor sons. The Prescribed Authority himself stated in his order that the mother was only acting as the guardian and the land was recorded in the name of the three minor sons after the death of their father Prasad. The mother Smt. Vishuni Devi was recorded as the guardian of the three minor sons. In this view of the matter, the Prescribed Authority was wrong in treating the case to be a case of the 'family' of Smt. Vishuni Devi, where the minor sons alone inherited the property of their deceased father and their mother merely acted as the guardian of the three minor sons without herself having any interest in the assets left by her deceased husband. In my view, on the terms of the definition of 'family' quoted above, it will not be a case of the land being held by a family. No land was held by Smt. Vishuni Devi after the death of her husband. Her three minor sons alone held the land in the share of 1/3 each and their mother did not hold any land. Section 3 of the Act says except as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit in the territories to which this Act applies. Here, as 1 have emphasised above, it could not be said that Smt. Vishuni Devi held any land along with her sons. She did not have any interest in the land and therefore, it cannot be treated to be a case where a family could be said to hold land in excess of the ceiling. The appellate judgment in my view does not suffer from any apparent error of want of jurisdiction.
(3.) THIS petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.;