JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioners assail the order of the Revenue Officer determining ceiling surplus area in their hands in a suo motu proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act. An appeal against the order was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate and the revision was thrown out summarily. 2. So far as the order of the revisional authority is concerned, learned Standing Counsel concedes that it is bad and cannot be sustained, as a revision lies both on facts and on law and the revisional authority was, therefore, bound to entertain the revision and go into the matter on merits. Ordinarily, on the concession of learned Standing Counsel the revisional order should have been quashed and the revision should have been directed to be re-heard. Mr. Rath for the Petitioners, however, contends that the Petitioners would unnecessarily be put to hardship again if the revision is directed to be re-heard, inasmuch as on the face of it, the determination of the ceiling surplus land is unsustainable. We have, therefore, thought it proper to examine the merit of the matter, as our jurisdiction to so examine is not ousted. 3. The total surplus land found in the hands of the Petitioners is 42 decimals according to standard acre. The land admittedly belonged to one Baraja Naik who died in the year 1954, leaving behind three sons and a widow. Baraja had a total area of Ac.22.21 decimals. According to the Petitioners, out of it about 8 acres were class-II lands. 8.77 acres were Class-III lands while the remaining 5.41 acres were class-IV lands. On the basis of the aforesaid classification, the total of 22.21 acres amount to 9.48 standard acres. Petitioners pleaded before the Revenue Officer in answer to the suo motu proceeding that they had long separated. The widow of' Baraja had a share. Since title to her share had vested in her upon death of her husband, that property could not be taken into account for determining the lands possessed by the family. The definition of 'family' given in Section 37(b) of the Act refers to the individual, landholder and the wife or husband as the case may be of such individual, their children whether major or minor, but would not cover their mother. The definition of 'family' given in Section 37(b) of the Act refers to the individual, landholder and the wife or husband as the case may be of such individual, their children whether major or minor, but would not cover their mother. If after the death of Baraja in 1954, his widow (Petitioner No. 4) had a share and that 1/4th share is excluded, the rest of the property would not reach the ceiling limit. Again, the property being ancestral, in the hands of one brother, i.e. Petitioner No. 1, all the property belonging to other brothers could not be taken into account even in terms of the definition, as brothers are not included in the definition of 'family'. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Revenue Officer went wrong in putting all the properties left by Baraja into the hotchpot for determining the ceiling surplus area. 4. The writ application is accordingly allowed and the order of the Revenue Officer as affirmed in appeal is quashed. There would be no order for costs. N.K. Das, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed