The definition of 'family' in Section 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, cannot be interpreted retrospectively to include unmarried sons as members of their mother's family, if they had become separate prior to the commencement of the Act.

R. N. MISRA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the decisions of the different authorities under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') in the matter of fixation of ceiling surplus lands by issue of a writ of certiorari.

( 2 ) INITIALLY there were two separate ceiling surplus proceedings under Section 42 of the Act--one against petitioner's mother Smt. Soubhagya Manjari Devi and the other against the petitioner, but later, the Revenue Officer dropped the proceeding so far as the petitioner is concerned and in a single proceeding, the entire property belonging to the petitioner and his mother was taken into consideration. By his order dated 11-11-1976 (Annexure 1), the Revenue Officer stated:--

". . . . . . . . . But I hold that Bhubaneswar Prasad Singh Deo (petitioner) being unmarried (though living in separate mess) should be included as a member of his mother Smt. Soubhagya Manjari Devi's family. Soubhagya Manjari Devi is entitled to retain sixteen standard acres. . . . . . . . . "

Petitioner's stand that he was entitled to a separate ceiling area has been uniformly rejected in appeal and revision,

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was separated both in mess and by metes and bounds from his mother in 1982. In the record-of-rights finally published on 26-8-1965 petitioner has been shown to be completely separate and there is a separate record published in his name. Since challenge by the petitioner in this writ application is on the footing that ha is entitled to be treated as a landholder on his own right, separate from his mother and, therefore, he was entitled to a separate ceiling unit, we have to examine whether in law on the facts found petitioner could be treated as a separate ceiling holder.

( 4 ) IT is contended before us that petitioner had throughout maintained that once he had become separate prior to the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms Act of 1960, he should not be treated as a member of the family of the mother, merely because he had not been married. The Act, it has been further contended, did not intend to unsettle settled positions. Right, title and interest in land which existed on the date of commencement of the Act were not intended to be disturbed or whittled down in any manner. If as a fact, parties had become separate prior to the enforcement of the Act, relying upon the artificial definition of 'family' in Section 37 (b) of the Act, different families or persons no longer belonging to one family, could not be treated as a 'family'. It has been further submitted that the properties of which petitioner wag owner came to him in his own right under the law. His mother succeeded to the properties recorded in her name from her husband after his death or by grant. There is no provision in the Act which requires the Revenue Officer in a case of this type to treat the mother as the propositus and overlook the male holder like the petitioner. In case the petitioner was taken as the appropriate person, for determining his family, the mother was not to be taken into account.

( 5 ) THE definition of the term 'family' occurs in Section 37 (b) and runs thus:--

"'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. "

The definition is indeed an artificial one very different from the concept of 'family' in personal law. The validity of the definition has already been upheld in this Court in the case of Bhikari Sahu v. State of Orissa, ILR (1975) Cuttack 843. Where a joint family according to Hindu Law is divided by partition, each cosharer entitled to a share becomes full owner of his separated interest. The rights and obligations of a co-sharer in a joint family are somewhat pec