JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo motu revision under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act moved by the Collector. Koraput against the orders dated 28-9-1974, 19-10-1974, 25-1-1975 and 24-2-1975 passed by Tahasildar, Gunupur in O.L.R. (Ceiling) Case No. 103/73. In his reference the following three points are made: (i) Revenue Officer has wrongly accepted the statement made, by the opposite party and excluded 25.05 acres granted to his mother as a part of family settlement: (ii) He has also wrongly excluded the land gifted to his daughter measuring 12.31 acres: and (iii) He has wrongly excluded an area of 2 acres donated to the Panchayat Samiti, Gudari by a registered deed of 1974 for excavation of a tank for public purposes. 2. Standing Counsel argues that the tank given in 1974 for public purposes may be part of the ceiling surplus land and can be reserved for public purposes. Sri C.V. Murty appearing for the opposite party has no objection to this. 3. Standing Counsel also concedes that the mother of opposite party has not been noticed. He also points out that adoption has not been established and the will of the opposite party's father has not been produced in the lower court. 4. Sri C.V. Murty appearing for the opposite party argues that Section 59(2) is not designed to unsettle rights settled with the parties nine years ago. He relies on AIR 1980 Orissa Page 162 wherein it has been held that inherent powers have been given under Section 151 of the C.P.C. where there is no other provision in the Act for interference. 5. He also points out that the transfer of land to the mother was made by a registered deed in 1966 long before the appointed date i.e. 26-9-1970. This deed was executed on the basis of a settlement made according to the last wish of opposite party's father in his will dated 7-5-1949. Widowed mother cannot be a part of the O.L.R. family. She has not been noticed. Her land cannot be construed as property belonging to the family. He relies on AIR 1979 Orissa Page 58 to establish that the widow is not a member of the O.L.R. family and that no order can be passed against her without notice. 6. The gift made in favour of the daughter was a registered deed dated 3-4-1966. Her land cannot be construed as property belonging to the family. He relies on AIR 1979 Orissa Page 58 to establish that the widow is not a member of the O.L.R. family and that no order can be passed against her without notice. 6. The gift made in favour of the daughter was a registered deed dated 3-4-1966. By an affidavit before the Revenue Officer it has been clarified that number of children had died immediately after birth. So this daughter was given in adoption to the maternal grand mother with the landed property gifted to her for the purpose of maintenance and marriage expenses. This girl was married in 1980 and the opposite party did not perform the Kanyadan. He has also not included this girl in the list of total number of members of the family in the return filed before the Revenue Officer in this case nor he has claimed any land on behalf of his daughter as she had ceased to be a member of his family, having-been given in adoption. Total number of members of the family as declared is six excluding this girl. He got a ceiling of 12 standard acres and the excess land of 4.86 acres had already vested in Government by the order of the Revenue Officer. 7. I agree that two acres donated by the opposite party for purpose of public tank may be treated as a part of the ceiling surplus land and kept for public purposes. 8. In the other two cases, that is mother and daughter, I agree with Sri C.V. Murty that Revenue Officer's order is right. Registered deeds prior to 1970 exist and such transfers cannot be questioned at this stage. The widowed mother is not a member of the opposite party's family. No notice has been issued to her at all. The case of the daughter is also similar. The fact that the opposite party in not claiming his daughter as a member of his family establishes the bonafides of her adoption. I do not accept the plea of the Standing Counsel that the adoption has not been proved. The document of 1966 and the gift deed filed later are enough to accept this adoption. No evidence to the contrary is available. 9. I would, therefore, uphold the orders of the Revenue Officer and dismiss the revision. 10. I do not accept the plea of the Standing Counsel that the adoption has not been proved. The document of 1966 and the gift deed filed later are enough to accept this adoption. No evidence to the contrary is available. 9. I would, therefore, uphold the orders of the Revenue Officer and dismiss the revision. 10. I have held in O.L.R. Revision Case 89/82 that powers under Section 59(2) are really wide and there is no limitation. I do not accept Sri C.V. Murty's contention in this regard. Final Result : Dismissed