JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal. C.J. 1. This application arises out of a proceeding initiated under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, "the Act") determining the area within the limits of the celling to be retained by the land holder. 2. The question that arises for consideration is as to within the Act provides for any cut-off date, i.e. the date with with reference 'to which the right of the land holder to retain the extent of the area is to be determined. 3. The Petitioner had filed the return in Form XII as required under Chapter IV of the Act in the year 1973. At that time his family consisted of himself, his wife and three children. But by the time the draft statement as required u/s 43 was published in the year 1979, two more children were born to him. Opposite party No. 3, however, treating the constitution of the family as mentioned in the return, i.e., five members only allowed only 10 standard acres to the Petitioner and disallowed his claim for 4 more standard .acres at the rate of 2 standard acres for each additional member as provided u/s 37-A. 4. The Petitioner filed an appeal for this relief, but the appellate authority also rejected his claim by his order in Annexure-2 and held that the right of the land holder pad to be determined with reference to the facts prevailing at the time of enforcement of Chapter IV of the Act, and therefore, the subsequent increase ill the number of the family members could not be taken into account for allotment of the ceiling area. 5. The Petitioner then filed a revision before the District Collector who also by the impugned order dated 30-10-1980 (Annexure-3) rejected the same leading to the filing of the present writ application. 6. In order to appreciate the contention of the Petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter IV deals with "Ceiling and disposal of surplus land". Section 37-B prohibits a person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area "on and from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 which came into force with effect from 2-10-1973. Chapter IV deals with "Ceiling and disposal of surplus land". Section 37-B prohibits a person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area "on and from the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 which came into force with effect from 2-10-1973. Similarly, Section 40 prohibits disposition of land by way of transfer partition and otherwise with respect to the lands held in excess of the ceiling area by any person after the commencement of the said amending Act of 1973 either by sale, gift of otherwise or by partition "until the surplus land, which is to vest in the Government u/s 45 has been determined and taken possession of by or on behalf of the Government". The Act "any transaction made in violation of this prohibition" was to be treated as void except when it was made with the written permission of the Revenue Officer or covered under the exemptions provided therein. Section 40-A imposes an obligation upon every person holding land to file a return before the .expiry of 90 days from the date of commencement of the 1973 Amending Act in these words: 40-A. Submission of returns- (1) . Every person holding land (which shall include lands transferred by sale gift or otherwise or partitioned by him after the 26th. day of September, 1970) either as land bolder or raiyat in excess of the ceiling area at the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1973 shall before the expiry of ninety days, from such commencement submit to the Revenue Officer, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, a return indicating the parcels of land which he wishes to I retain and the parcels of land in excess of the ceiling area (hereinafter referred to as "surplus land") and furnish in the said returns such other particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that a person who has made any transfer or effected any partition in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 shall not have the right to indicate the parcels of land which he wishes to retain and the parcels Of land in excess of the ceiling area but shall have to file the return furnishing the particulars of all the lands held by him as aforesaid: xx xx. xx Provided that where the person is a family consisting of more than five members, the ceiling area in respect of such person shall be ten standard acres increased by two standard acres for each member in excess of five, so, however, that the ceiling area shall not exceed eighteen standard acres: Orissa Act 17 of 1973 came into force with effect from 2-10-1973 and the 'return' u/s 40-A had to be submitted within 90 days of the commencement of, this Act, i.e., by 31st December, 1973. 7. The Act was passed to Provide for acquisition and distribution of surplus land held by a person in excess of the ceiling area.. The various sections contained in Chapter IV referred to above imposed restrictions on disposition of land and laid down the consequences of contravention of those provisions. We have seen the definition of 'family' in Section 37 (b) and the embargo contained in Sections 39 and 40-A which contemplated computation of the permissible ceiling area to be retained by' a 'person' with reference to the facts existing as on the 26th day of September, 1970. All alienations and dispositions or change in the status of a person, even a partition by a major married som, were to be ignored for the purpose of computation of the permissible ceiling area to be held by a land holder. The scheme of the Act is an equitable distribution of land amongst the landless persons by acquiring or taking over the surplus lands from such persons as were possessed of larger holdings in excess of the limitations prescribed in that regard by this law on the 26th. day of September, 1970. In other words, although the liability of filing the return came later on and the excess area was to be taken over by the Government after the coming into force of Orissa Act 17 of 1973, by the fiction of law, the Statute advisedly provided for determining the surplus land from a retrospective date. i.e., 26th. September, 1970 because on account of the contemplated provisions, big landholders had adopted various tactics to reduce their holdings between the period 26th. September, 1970 and the date of coming into force of the 1973 amending Act. i.e., 2-10-1973. In order to overcome all these manoeuvering, the law fixed an earlier date for the purpose of computation. 8. Having examined the provisions of the Statute. September, 1970 and the date of coming into force of the 1973 amending Act. i.e., 2-10-1973. In order to overcome all these manoeuvering, the law fixed an earlier date for the purpose of computation. 8. Having examined the provisions of the Statute. I come to the conclusion that the scheme of the law clearly contemplates that the surplus land in the hands of a landholder has to be ascertained on the basis of his total possession with reference to that date after taking into account the various prohibitions and restrictions noticed above. But at the same time I would also hold that since the liability to file the return arose only, after the coming into force of the 1973 amending Act, i.e., on 2-10-1973, question of allotting the number of units or the extent of area to a 'person' has got to be determined with reference to the date on which the 1973 amending Act came into force i.e. 2-10-1973. Any subsequent change in the constitution of 'family' thereafter, is not to be of any consequence and the ceiling area would not fluctuate with the subsequent increase or decrease in the number of the family members. Taking any other view in my opinion would be unjust and inequitable and may give rise to various evil tendencies to defeat the aim and object of the Statute. In support of my view, I may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed and Others a case from Maharashtra in which an earlier decision in Raghunath Laxman Wani and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, taking similar view was also referred with approval. 9. No authority was cited on behalf of the Petitioner taking a contrary view save and except the submission, that it was permissible for,the Court to take into account the subsequent developments in a case. This general proposition, however, cannot be applied to such a case which would defeat the very aim and object of the Statute, and, instead of furthering its intention, obstruct its proper application. Reference was also made by Mr. Misra to the case of Chet Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. This general proposition, however, cannot be applied to such a case which would defeat the very aim and object of the Statute, and, instead of furthering its intention, obstruct its proper application. Reference was also made by Mr. Misra to the case of Chet Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab and Ors. The ratio of the decision in this case, instead of supporting the Petitioner's case, goes against him as in that case also the surplus land was determined with reference to a fixed date, 21-8-1956, and the transfers and alienations made thereafter were ignored. 10. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Act, I must hold that this application has got no merit and must fail. It is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, I shall relieve the Petitioner of the burden of paying costs to the opposite parties. D.P. Mohapatra, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed