IMPORTANT POINT
For Section 37 of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, a married daughter is not a member of her parents family but she is a member of her husband s family. As against this a major son after marriage would not automatically cease to be a member of his parents family unless he is separated by partition or otherwise prior to cut off date (i.e. 26-9-1970).

Headnote:Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960-Section 37(b)-Definition of family-Can a married woman be termed as child and thereby member of her parents family or whether she is member of her husband s family? (High Court holding the later)-Appeals against dismissed-Exclusion clause -Whether applicable to major married son separated by partition? (Yes).
       Held : The object and reason for substituting Section 37 and incorporating Sections 37-A and 37-B is with a view to imposing a ceiling on the aggregate area of land held by all the members of a family. For achieving that object, it is not necessary to include married daughter s holdings in the holdings of her parents by stating that she is major child of her parents. For the purpose of family she becomes part and parcel of her husband s family and that is the common notion and understanding. Hence, in our view, the interpretation given by the High Court is just and reasonable. It is also established rule of interpretation of a statute that court will interpret a statute as far as possible, agreeable to justice and reason, and avoid imputing to the legislature, an intention to enact a provision which flouts notions of justice and norms of fair play unless a contrary intention is manifest from the words plain and unambiguous [Re. Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530]. In any case, the impugned judgment of the High Court excluding married daughters from the concept of family of her parents is based on interpretation of term family given in the local law which is thereafter consistently followed and, therefore, at the fag end of the implementation of Orissa Land Reforms Act, it would not be proper to disturb the course of decisions by interpreting that provision differently. A different view would not only introduce an element of uncertainty and confusion, it would also have the effect of unsettling orders and/or transactions which might have been entered into on the faith of those decisions. In the result these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 9 to 11)
       Held further : For the purpose of the land holding under the Act, the term family does not include such a son, who is major, married and separated by partition or otherwise prior to cut off date. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Shah, J.-Civil Appeal Nos. 3190, 3191 and 3192 of 1995 :

-Can a married woman be termed as child and thereby member of her parents family?

-Whether she is member of her husband s family?

-As per normal feature in the Society-she would be member of her husband s family and not that of her parents.

2. However, it is the contention of the State Government that she would be member of her parents family for the purpose of land ceiling under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on the basis of definition given to the word family in Section 37(b) of the Act. The Full Bench of the High Court negatived the same by holding thus (Para 13):-

"…....I am inclined to take the view that while defining family , the legislature was conscious of the position of married daughters and in view of the rural and agricultural set up in this part of the country, it was perhaps thought that ipso facto they, on being married away, ceased to be members of the parents family and become members of the husbands family and therefore no provision was thought necessary to be made. Giving this interpretation to the statutory definition of the expression family would not work out any violation either of the scheme of the legislation or injustice to a daughter exposing her to double jeopardy, once by aggregating her properties with her father s holdings and then with her husband s holdings if her husband happens to be a land holder as such."

3. That order is under challenge in these appeals.

4. For appreciating and deciding the controversy, we would refer to the relevant provisions of the Act which have bearing on the questions involved.

"37-A. Ceiling area-The ceiling area in respect of a person shall be ten standard acres:

Provided that where the person is family consisting of more than five members, the ceiling area in respect of such person shall be ten standard acres increased by two standard acres for each member in excess of five, so however, that the ceiling area shall not exceed eighteen standard acres.

37-B. Persons not entitled to hold land in excess of ceiling area-On and from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 (President s Act 17 of 1973), no person shall, either as landholder or raiyat or as both, be entitled to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area.

Explanation-For the purposes of this section all lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all the members of a family shall be deemed to be held by the family.

37. Definitions-In this Chapter-

(a) "person" includes a company, family, association or other body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of owning or holding property;

(b) "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 the 26th day of September, 1970."

Prior to the amendment by Act No. 29 of 1976, Section 37 was as under:-

"37. (1) No person shall hold after the commencement of this Act lands as land-holder or raiyat under personal cultivation in excess of the ceiling area determined in the manner hereinafter provided.

Explanation-For the purposes of this Chapter a person includes a company or any other corporate body or a joint Hindu Mitakshara family.

(2) .........."

5. As per Section 37-B, no person is entitled to hold any land in excess of ceiling area. "Person" includes family. So, a family is not entitled to hold land in excess of ceiling area and family in relation to an individual would mean husband or wife as the case may be, and their children. However, where such family is consisting of more than five members then ceiling area in respect of such family is to be increased by two standard acres for each member in excess of five but that ceiling area shall not exceed eighteen st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 712

Cases Referred (3)