Ojha, J. - (1.) 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.;