JUDGMENT - Padhye S., J.:- The Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal No. 2 (Umarkhed Block) Pusad, District Yavatmal while deciding Ceiling Case No. 44/60-A (5)/1975-76, 43/60-A (5)/75-76 of Krishnapur dated 29-1-1977 of village Krishnapur upon two returns filed by respondent No. 1 Smt. Anubai and respondent No. 2 Kamalabai as co-widows of deceased Kashirao Nalawade came to a conclusion that the two widows referred to above and 3rd widow Smt. Shashikalabai who had not filed a return together constituted a family unit within the meaning of explanation to section 4 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 as amended in the year 1975 (referred to hereinafter as the 'Ceiling Act') and further found that it was necessary to club the separate lands held by all the three widows under partition in the year 1957 together for the purpose of ascertaining the total holding of the family unit of the three widows under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. On that basis, it was held that the family unit of 3 widows held 87 acres 37 gunthas of surplus land. This finding was set aside in Ceiling Appeal No. Alc. A. 196/77 decided on 28th March 1977 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur after holding that the 3 widows did not constitute a family unit within the meaning of that term in explanation to section 4 (1) of the Ceiling Act. Since the individual holdings of each of the widows was below 54 acres of ceiling limit, it was declared that none of them was holding any surplus land on 2-10 1975 under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. State of Maharashtra has filed this petition for challenging this decision given by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur in Ceiling Appeal No. Alc. A 186/77 (Anubai v. State)1, Alc. A. 120/77 (Arvind v. State and others)2, Ale. A. 187/77 {Shashi-kalabai v. State)3, Alc. A. 188/77 (Kamalabai v. State)4 and Ale. 189/77 (Sakha v. State and others)5: 2. Shri Badar, learned A. G. P. appearing for the State submittedthat sub-clause (b) in explanation to section 4 (1) of the Ceiling Act must be read disjunctively and in that case the co-widows being surviving spouses will form family unit. Section 4 (1) and explanation reads as under :- “4. 189/77 (Sakha v. State and others)5: 2. Shri Badar, learned A. G. P. appearing for the State submittedthat sub-clause (b) in explanation to section 4 (1) of the Ceiling Act must be read disjunctively and in that case the co-widows being surviving spouses will form family unit. Section 4 (1) and explanation reads as under :- “4. (1) All land held by each member of a family unit, whether jointly or separately, shall for the purposes of determining the ceiling area of the family unit, be deemed to be held by the family unit. Explanation-A “family unit” means- (a) a personand his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters, if any; or (b) where any spouse is dead, the surviving spouse or spouses, and the minor sons and minor unmarried daughters; or (c) where the spouses are dead, the minor sons and minor un­ married daughters of such deceased spouses.” 3. According to Shri Badar, the provision in sub-clause (b) referred to above has to be read to mean the surviving spouses where the husband is dead, whether any of them have got minor sons and/or minor unmarried daughters or not. 4. As pointed out by Shri Bapat, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, it is not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the State and read the word “and” in clause (b) of explanation to section 4(1)of the Ceiling Act disjunctively because it appears that when the legislature intended that the conjunction “and” should be read dis­junctively, legislature added words “if any” at the end. Sub-section (a) provides that a person and his spouse (or more than one spouse) and their minor sons and minor unmarried daughters if any (emphasis supplied) shall constitute a family unit. The result of the use of the words “if any” is that even if there is a person and his spouse without minor sons and /or minor unmarried daughters, they will constitute a family unit. Reading the pro­visions of sub-section (b) with which we are concerned against this back­ground, it is to be found that the words 'if any' have been deliberately omitted in sub-clause (b) by the legislature. Reading the pro­visions of sub-section (b) with which we are concerned against this back­ground, it is to be found that the words 'if any' have been deliberately omitted in sub-clause (b) by the legislature. Had such words been put at the end of sub-section (b) also, the contention advanced on behalf of the State that 3 widows being surviving spouses constitute a family unit could have been acceptable. In the event of deliberate omission of these words in sub-section (b), the only possible conclusion is that for constitution of-a family unit the surviving spouse or spouses must have either minor son or sons or minor unmarried daughter or daughters. 5. In the view of the matter which I have taken each of the co-widows constituted a person and the three co-widows together could not be said to be members of a family unit within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Ceiling Act. 6. Result, therefore, is that the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petitiondismissed.