STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus K. SRINIVASA RAO (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 61 · Decided: 18-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. 
A 
~ 
v. 
' 
K. SRINIVASA RAO (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
APRIL 18, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy and Land Laws: 
Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (as amended by Presidents Act 17 of 
"""' 
1973): Sections 2(21), 37-A, 37-B and 37(b). 
c 
Land-Ceiling on-Married woman-Ceiling in respect of -Held: 
lvfarried woman is an individual-If she is holding land she would be regarded 
as a separate unit-Hence, she has to file a separate declaration in respect 
of her holdings-ff.er landholdings cannot be clubbed with that of her 
D 
parents-Even a divorced or separated woman staying with her parents is 
not a member of her parents' family for the purposes of land ceiling laws. 
"Family"-Major married son and daughter-Held: A major son, after 
marriage, does not automatically cease to be a member of his parents' 
family-Whereas, after marriage, a daughter ceases to be a member of her E 
parents' family. 
Majority of son-Marriage and separation before cut-o/J date i.e. 
26.9.1970-Exclusion of from the definition of "family "-Benefit of-Held: In 
order to get the benefit of exclusion from "family" it does not matter whether 
a son marries before or after separation-The only requirement of exclusion F 
clause is that before the cut-off date such son should be a major, married and 
separated by partition or othenvise. 
Inte1pretation of Statutes: 
Rule of construction-Notions of justice and norms of fair 'play- G 
Principles-Applicability of-Held: A provision of a statute should be 
interpreted.as far as agreeable to justice and reason. 
" 
Words and Phrases: 
"Family"-Meaning of-In the context of S.37{b) of the Orissa Land H 
61 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A Reforms Act, 1960 (as amended by President's Act 17of1973). 
B 
c 
"Person under disability"-Meaning of-In the context of S.2(21) of 
the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (as amended by President's Act 17 of 
1973). 
In CA Nos. 3190-92 of 1996, the following questions arose before 
this Court :-
(a) 
Can a married woman be termed as a child and thereby a 
member of her parents' family? or 
(b) 
Whether she is a member of her husband's family? 
In CA No. 2873 of 2001 the following question arose before this 
Court:-
Whether majority of a son, his marriage and separation for the purpose 
of the definition "family" in Section 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 
D 1960 (as amended by President's Act 17 of 1973) acre to be taken into 
consideration inde11endently of each other to have ha11pened before the cut-off 
date i.e. 26.9.1970 or the separation is required to be as a ma.jor married 
son? 
Dismissing Civil A11peal Nos. 3190-92of1996·and allowing Civil A11peal 
E No. 2873 of 2001, the Court 
HELD : 1. As per Section 37-B of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 
(as amended by President's Act 17 of 1973), no person is entitled to hold any 
land in excess of the ceiling areas. "Person" includes family. So, a 'family' 
is not entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area and family in relation 
F to an indhidual 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 the 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 standard acres. As per the Explanation to Section 37-B, 
G all lands held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or 
all the members of a family are deemed to be held by the family. Further, in 
case where land is held by a family, the question - as to whether the holding 
of the family was in excess of the ceiling area has to be decided in reference 
to the state of affairs as it existed on and from the commencement of the 
Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973i.e. 2nd October, 1973. 
H 
.(67-E-GJ 
, .. ; . 
... 
... 
1· 
< 
...f 
.,... 
STATE v. K. SRINIVASA RAO 
63 
Dibyasingh Malana v. State ofOrissa, [1989) Supp. 2 SCC 312, referred A 
to. 
2. A married woman is an individual and as JJer the definition of the 
word 'family', her family would consist of herself, her husband and their 
child1-en whether major or minor. This would also be in consonance with the 
general understanding of the word 'family' as well as status of a married B 
woman in the society. If she is holding land, she would be regarded as a 
separate unit who will have to file a separate declaration in respect

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.