(1.) The significant issue which members in this writ application referred to a large-Bench may be precisely formulated in the following terms : - "Whether the properties held by a married daughter of a 'family' prior to the appointed date mentioned in S.37(b), Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act') would be liable to be clubbed with the property of the family?"
(2.) The facts - Petitioner 1 is the daughter of petitioner 2. She had been married way back in the year 1940 and has been living with her husband all along. On the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector, Bonger-Bojha, a proceeding under the Act was started against petitioner 2 who subsequently filed a return on 14-5-1974 (after the expiry of the stipulated period). On the publication of the Draft Statement on 16-8-1975, objections were filed by the said landholder and his adopted son (Gadadhar Das) separately on 15-9-1975 raising various points. In the said proceeding, an inquiry was also made which revealed that petitioner 1 was the only legitimate daughter of petitioner 2 who was married at Jeypore and was residing with her husband and had got A.15.72 of lands recorded in her name in Khata No. 8 in village Dehana. The revenue authorities, by the impugned orders (Annexures-1, 3 and 4), have held that the lands of the daughter would also be taken to the account of petitioner 2 for the purpose of fixation of ceiling area in view of the Revenue Department Circular dt/.11-3-1976. According to them, the Act did not envisage exclusion of the property held by a major married daughter even though it was specific with respect to the major married son living separately by partition or otherwise before 26-9-1970.
(3.) The Division Bench, considering the importance of the point and doubting the correctness of certain observations made and views expressed in some other decisions of this Court, referred it to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. This is how the question indicated above arises for an answer.