Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
D. Pathak, S.C. Mohapatra, JJ.
MAHARANI BEWA AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 303 of 1981
Decided On : 29-03-1985
LAND REFORMS - CEILING SURPLUS PROCEEDING - FAMILY - MARRIED DAUGHTERS - WHETHER LAND OF MARRIED DAUGHTERS CAN BE TREATED AS LAND OF FAMILY OF THEIR MOTHER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 37(B) OF ORISSA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a mother and her two married daughters, challenged a ceiling surplus proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, where the Revenue Officer treated all the heirs of the mother's deceased husband as a family and allowed them to retain only ten standard acres, instead of considering the mother and her daughters as separate families entitled to three ceiling units of ten standard acres each.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the land of the married daughters could be treated as the land of the family of their mother, as per the definition of 'family' in Section 37(b) of the Act. The court reasoned that the responsibility of filing the return under Section 41 of the Act lies on the head of the ceiling family or any member thereof, and that the proviso to Section 41(2) clarifies that where several individuals file returns relating to the same family, all the returns shall be taken up together.
Issues: Whether the land of the married daughters can be treated as the land of the family of their mother for the purpose of determining ceiling surplus under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 37(b) of the Act, which defines 'family', to include married daughters as members of the family of their mother. The court also relied on the decision of a Full Bench of the same court in Nityananda Guru and Vs. State of Orissa and Others, where it was held that lands held by persons coming within the ambit of the definition of 'family' in Section 37(b) would get aggregated or clubbed in the lands held by the parent or spouse, as the case may be, in determination of the ceiling area.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Petitioners' contention that the land of the married daughters could not be treated as the land of the family of their mother was without merit.
JUDGMENT :
S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the mother and her two married daughters, arises out of a ceiling surplus proceeding under Chapter IV of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as 'the Act').
2. The land involved in this case originally belonged to one Basistha. He had two sons, named, Chintamani and Madhab. Daitary, son of Chintamani, is husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. He died in the year 1952 and Petitioner No. 1 as widow only became the owner of the properties by succession. In or about 13-4-1967, there was a settlement among Petitioner No. 1 and her two married daughters, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 retained 36 acres 16 decimals, Petitioner No. 2 was given 31.50 acres and Petitioner No. 3 was given 31.09 acres. While the Petitioner were possessing the properties as owner thereof, Chapter IV of the Act came into force. Petitioner No. 1 filed a return under Sestion40-A indicating the separate exclusive possession of her daughters. The Revenue Officer registered a proceeding as O.L.R. Case No. 4 of 1974. However, erroneously, he treated all the heirs of Basistha as a family and allowed all of them together to retain only ten standard acres. In appeals u/s 44(2), one by Petitioner No. 1 registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 7 of 1975 and another by her other co-sharers registered as O.L.R. Appeal No. 8 of 1975, the appellate authority set aside the order and remitted the proceeding back to the Revenue Officer for treating Petitioner No. 1 as one family and other co. sharers as three other families. After remand, the Revenue Officer issued notice to Petitioner No. 1. She appeared and produced the documents of title which indicated that she was holding ceiling surplus land. The order dated 15-6-1976 discloses that she filed an affidavit that her family consists of three members only i.e., herself and her two daughters. After enquiry, the Revenue Officer found 30.77 standard acres to be possessed by Petitioner No. 1. She was allowed to retain ten standard acres selected by her and the balance 20.77 standard acres were found to be surplus. The draft statement was revised and was confirmed u/s 44(1) by order dated 23-8-1976.
Possession of the surplus lands was taken on 15-1-1977. They were distributed u/s 51 of the Act by order dated 28-2-1977 of the Revenue Officer.
A revision was filed by the Petitioner No. 1 against the appellate order which was directed to be returned to her to be presented before the proper revisional authority. Petitioners, however allege that they had no knowledge of such order. After the distribution of the land, a review application was filed by Petitioner No. 1 before the appellate authority where it was claimed that the three Petitioners of this writ application are entitled to three ceiling units of ten standard acres each. After dismissal of the review application of Petitioner No. 1, the three Petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Mr. R. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Petitioner Nos. and 3, the married daughters of Petitioner No. 1 are not the members of the family of Petitioner No. 1 and their lands could not have been treated to be the land of Petitioner No. 1 and the three Petitioners should have been considered by the statutory authorities as three individuals. The moot point for consideration, therefore, is:
Whether the land of the married daughters can be treated as the land of the family of their mother?
4. Under the scheme of Chapter IV, ceiling has been fixed on the holding of land by a person. Any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area is to file return. 'Person' has been defined u/s 37(a) to include a family which again has been defined in Section 37(b). Thus, wherever, the word 'family" occurs in any provision in Chapter IV it is to carry the meaning as given in Section 37(b). The r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
