JUDGMENT

OJHA, J.:— Special leave granted.

2. These three appeals raise a common question about the interpretation of the term " family" in S. 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to Cl. (a) of S. 37 of the Act the term "person" includes inter alia family. Clause (b) of S. 37 being the clause under consideration may usefully be reproduced. It reads :

"(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."

3. According to the appellants in these three appeals partition in their respective families had taken place in the year 1965. The Act except Chapters III and IV came into force on 1st October, 1965. Chapter IV of the Act which contains the provisions relating to ceiling and disposal of surplus -land came into force on 7th January, 1972. Suo motu proceedings under S. 42 of the Act for declaration of surplus land and consequential purposes were initiated in the year 1974. Objections were filed asserting inter alia that in view of the partition in the families of the appellants in the year 1965 the land in the ancestral properties which fell in the share of the appellants could not be clubbed with those of their father. This contention, however, was not accepted on the definition of the term "family" contained in S. 37(b) of the Act. Such of the major married sons who as such had separated by partition before the 26th day of September, 1970 as contemplated by the definition of the term "family" were allotted separate ceiling units but so far as the appellants are concerned their shares were clubbed with those of their father and only one ceiling unit was allotted as contemplated by the relevant provision of the Act.

4. The appellants having failed to get relief in the appeals and revisions filed by them under the Act challenged the orders passed by the various authorities under the Act in writ petitions before the High Court of Orissa. These writ petitions were dismissed relying on the decision of a Full Bench of that Court in Nityananda Guru v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 Ori 54. It is these orders of the High Court which have been challenged in these appeals. The validity of S. 37(b) of the Act does not appear to have been challenged. before the High Court nor has it been seriously challenged even before us except by making a faint submission that even if by virtue of the said provision being incorporated in the 9th Schedule, it may be immune from challenge in view of Art. 31B of the Constitution, the protection under Art. 31C would not be available to it and it would be hit by Art. 14 unless it was established that it had nexus with the policy of the State towards securing any of the principles laid down in Part IV of. the Constitution. This submission even if it is permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court has obviously no substance in view of the undisputed position that the Act aims at agrarian reform and the provisions with regard to declaration of surplus land and its distribution among the have-nots namely landless persons is apparently to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principle laid down in Art. 39(b) of the Constitution occurring in Part IV thereof and S. 37(b) has a clear nexus with that policy. The aforesaid submission has, therefore, no substance.

5. At this place it may also be pointed out that validity of analogous provisions dealing with laws for declaration and distribution of surplus land framed by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra have already been upheld by this Court after rejecting challenges to them on various grounds in Thumati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1980) 3 SCR 1143; Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, (1980) 3 SCR 1181and Waman Rao v. Union