SURENDRA PRASAD PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application under Art, 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the adjudication of the. authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, treating him and his brother as a 'body of individuals' and determining the ceiling area and the surplus land on that basis

(2.) RAMAHARI Parida admittedly died in 1950 leaving behind the petitioner Surendra and Debendra, In a suo motu proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act'), the contention of the brothers that there was a partition was negatived, as the document produced by them was not a registered one and the ceiling area and surplus lands were determined treating them as a body of individuals'. Being unsuccessful in appeal and revision, they have moved this Court for a certiurari -

(3.) THE petitioner Surendra and Debendra are brothers. The question is : are they to be treated as two separate families or a 'body of individuals' ? The relevant provisions are as hereunder : '37. In this chapter : (a) 'person' ircludes a company, family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, andary institution capable of owning or holding property ; (b) 'family' in relation to an individual means the individuals, the husband or wife, as the case may be, of such individuals 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 the 26th day of September, 1970. 39. In determining the celling area in respect of a person, the following principles shall be followed, namely : (c) Where the person is a member of a Co -operative Farming Society, the extent of lather which he wculd get as his share if the land held By such society is divided shall be taken into account; 43.(1).............................. Provided that no part of the lands held by a Company or any other corporate body of which the person concerned may be a member or share -holder shall be shown as surplus lands in respect of such person.' Should the expression 'body of individuals' be given meaning of widest amplitude or should it take its colour from the context and the setting and from the various provisions contained in the Act ? To understand the meaning of the expression, it would be profitable to refer to a few other Acts where the expression 'person' has been defined to include a body of individuals. Section 2(33) of the Orissa General Clauses Act defines 'person' as under : . '2(33) 'Person' shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not'.' Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the expression has been defined as under : '2. Definitions -.In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - . (i) 'Person' includes an individual, a family, a firm, a company or an association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not .......................' Section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act defines the expression as under: '2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (31) 'person' includes - (i) an individual, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a company, (iv) a firm, (v) an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, (vi) a local authority and, (vii) every artificial juridical person, not falling within any of the proceeding sub -caluses'.