JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner assails the order of the Revenue Officer under Annexure-2 by which order the ceiling surplus land in the hands of one Bisakha Bewa has been assessed at 7,25 standard acres. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that though an extent of 10.98 acres of land had been allotted to her in an earlier partition and the Petitioner had married long since, yet in determining the ceiling surplus lands in the bands of the mother of the Petitioner, this land has been taken into account. It is the further grievance of the Petitioner that in the ceiling surplus case, the Petitioner has not been noticed. 2. After hearing Mr. Ray for the Petitioner, we do not find any substance in any of the contentions. u/s 37 (b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), '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. The definition is a fictional one and what it excludes from the purview of the family is a 'major married son who, as such had separated by partition or otherwise before the appointed day. Therefore, a married daughter would squarely come within the aforesaid definition. The same question no longer remains in the case of Nityananda Guru and etc, etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 1983 Od. 54. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, there is no force in the contention of Mr. Ray for the Petitioner that a married daughter will not be included within the definition of family' while determining the ceiling surplus land in the hands of the mother. 3. So far,as the second grievance is concerned, according to Mr. Ray, since the Petitioner has some interest in the land, notice should have been given to the Petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance has been placed on Sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Act and two Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. Bilas Thakur Vs. Tahsildar-cum-Revenue Officer and Others, and Rahas Debi and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer, Aska and Ors. 44 (1977) C.L.T. 109. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance has been placed on Sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Act and two Bench decisions of this Court in Smt. Bilas Thakur Vs. Tahsildar-cum-Revenue Officer and Others, and Rahas Debi and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer, Aska and Ors. 44 (1977) C.L.T. 109. Section 43 (2) is quoted hereinbelow in extenso: Subject to the rules made in that behalf the draft statement under Sub-section (1) shall be published inviting objections from persons interested and the Revenue Officer after hearing the objections, if any, received within thirty days of such publication and making such enquiries as he deems necessary and after the local committee, if any, may by order a recording his reasons in writing, alter or amend all or any of the particulars specified in the draft statement: Provided that in case where a revised return is due to be submitted under Sub-section (2) of Section 40-A or u/s 40-B, the Revenue Officer shall prepare the draft statement under Sub-section (1) after consideration of such return, if any. A plain reading of the aforesaid Sub-section makes it abundantly clear that the draft statement shall be published inviting objections from persons interested and the Revenue Officer after hearing objections, if any, received within thirty days of such publication and making such enquiries as he deems necessary may by order recording his reasons in writing alter or amend all or any of the particulars specified in the draft statement. What is obligatory under Sub-section (2), is the publication of the draft statement made under Sub-section (1) of Section 43 and then inviting objections from persons interested Nowhere under Sub-section (2) any obligation has been cast to issue notice to all the persons interested assurance of notice has been dealt with in Rule 30 of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), In the said rule, the draft statement is required to be published by affixing a true copy of it" to the notice board of the Revenue Officer and keeping it open for inspection, free of charge, by any person interested during office hours on working days for a period of thirty days from the date on which the copy is first affixed to the notice board. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30, a copy of the draft statement published under Sub-rule (1) is required to be sent by registered post with acknowledgement due to the person to whom it relates. Therefore, in our view, the Rules make it obligatory on the Revenue Officer to send a copy of the draft statement published under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 by registered post with acknowledgement due to the person to whom the draft statement relates and not to any other person who might be interested in the property. The other persons, who are interested in the property, can file their objections pursuant to the notice on the notice board and if such objections are filed then certainly those objections are to be enquired into by the Revenue Officer before finalising the draft statement. Thus, there is no requirement of law that all individuals who might be interested in the property concerned are to be noticed. In the Bench decision of this Court reported in Smt. Bilas Thakur v. Tahsildar-cum-Revenue Officer. Bargarh and others2, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner we do not find any discussion of the provisions of the Act and the Rules nor is there any decision on the question urged namely, whether all persons interested must be given notice of the proceeding, In view of our analysis of the provisions of the Act and the Rules already made above, and since nothing contrary has been said in the decisions relied upon we do not find any necessity to refer this case to a larger Bench. 4. The other decision reported in Rahas Debi and Ors. v. The Revenue Officer. Aska and others3, on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Ray for the Petitioner clearly states that notice must be issued to the person to whom the statement relate;;. In that particular case, the statement related to three ladies and therefore, it was held that notice must be given to all of them. There is no dispute with the proposition and, in fact it is in essence, the analysis made by us above. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the proceeding on account of absence of a notice to the Petitioner who might have some interest in the property in question. 5. There is no dispute with the proposition and, in fact it is in essence, the analysis made by us above. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the proceeding on account of absence of a notice to the Petitioner who might have some interest in the property in question. 5. In the result, we do not find any merits in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. A.K. Padhi, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed