TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to Clause (a) of Section 37 of the Act the term person includes inter alia family. Clause (b) of Section 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is these orders of the High Court which have been challenged in these appeals. The validity of Section 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 Article 31B of the Constitution, the protection under Article 31C would not be available to it and it would be hit by Article 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, Thin submission even if it is permitted to be raised for the first t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act had to be: read in such a manner as to exclude the land which had fallen to the share of the appellants even though they did not fall within the category of a major married son who as such had separated by partition or otherwise before the 26th day of September 1970 as contemplated by the definition of the term family in the said section. It was urged that this purpose could be achieved by adding the word or between the words major and married . According to learned Counsel if that is done the term individual would not include a major son who had separated by partition before the 26th day of September, 1970 even if he had not married prior to that date. We find it difficult to take recourse to this mode of interpretatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l, the husband or wife as the case may be of such individual and their children whether major or minor , The later part of Section 37(b) namely but does not include a major married son who as such had separated by partition or otherwise before the 26th day of September 1970 does not on the face of it contain a matter which may in substance be treated as a fresh enactment adding something to the main provision but is apparently and unequivocally a proviso containing an exception. This admits of no doubt in view of the words but does not include . In the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore v. The Indo Mercantile Bank Limited (1959) Supp. (2) S.C.R. 256 it was held: Ordinarily the effect of an excepting or a qualifying proviso is to carve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... term family' as contained in Section 37(b) of the Act, land of a married daughter is liable to be clubbed twice ; firstly, with that of her father and secondly, with that of her husband. According to him it is against the spirit of the law dealing with the question of declaration of surplus land. Suffice it to say, so far as this submission is concerned that none of appellants in these appeals is a married daughter and as such we do not find it necessary to go into situation if the word or is added between the words 'major and married. Not only a major unmarried son who had separated by partition before the 26th day of September, 1970 would get excluded from the definition of the term family even a minor married son would get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held by a Constitution Beach of this Court in Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0091/1954MANU/SC/0091/1954 : (1955) SC.R. 671 at 676: The learned advocate, however, contended this such a construction would be against the spirit of the election laws in that candidates who have rich friends or relations would have an unfair advantage over a poor rival. The spirit of the law may well be an elusive and unsafe guide and the supposed spirit can certainly not be given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the sections of the Act and the rules made thereunder. If all that can be said of these statutory provisions is that construed according to the ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning of their language they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
