PREMALATA DORA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though several contentions were raised in this writ application by the petitioners, we feel that dealing with one of them would suffice. The conclusion of the Member, Board of Revenue was to the effect that Premalata, widowed mother (petitioner No. 1) and her son Giridhari Dora (petitioner No. 2) constituted 'a family' under the provisions of Section 37 (b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short 'the Act'). The conclusion of the Member, Board of Revenue is contrary to the view expressed by this Court in 50(1980) CLT 132 : Jaga alias Jagannath Naik and Ors. v. The State of Orissa and Anr. ; and 1989 (II) OLR 15: Suresh Mohanty v. Mst. Satyabhama Mohanty and Ors.. The language of Section 37(b) is crystal clear that a 'family' in relation to an individual means the individual, the husband or wife as the case may be, of such individual and their children, whether major or minor, but does not include a major married son who as such had separated by partition or otherwise before 26th day of September, 1970, Mother is not covered within the definition of 'family'' in Section 37(b) of the Act. This is significant because the proceeding for determination of celling surplus land if any was suo motu initiated by the Revenue Officer against petitioner No. 2, the son,

(2.) WE therefore, vacate the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack (Annexure -5) and direct the Revenue Officer -cum -Tahasildar, Bargaih to re -dispose of the matter in accordance with law. - - The writ application is allowed in part, No costs.