JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - In this writ application arising out of a proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), the only question is as to whether the properties allotted to the mother of the Petitioner under a deed of partition or falling to her share by inheritance on the death of her husband could be amalgamated with the lands of the Petitioner, i.e., her son, while determining the ceiling surplus lands in the hands of the Petitioner. 2. Undisputedly, the lands. in question are ancestral properties. The Petitioner's father died on the year 1946 leaving behind two married daughters, the Petitioner and his mother, opposite party No. 1. On 5-4-1965, a partition was effected by way of a registered deed of family' settlement (Annexure-I) by which the Petitioner was allotted. 33.40 acres and his mother 2960 acres of land. Both of them were separately mutated in respect of the lands allotted to them. The ceiling surplus proceeding under the Act was initiated in the year 1974 by the Tahasildar, Jeypore (O.P. No. 2) who accepted the allotment of lands as mentioned above in favour of opposite party No. 1 and found only 11.06 standard acres as surplus in the hands of the Petitioner vide his order dated 30-9-1975 (Annexure-4). 3. The State Government did not file any appeal. But in the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Tahasildar, the Sub-divisional Officer (O.P. No. 3) held that the deed of settlement was a sham transaction and directed the Tahasildar by his order in Annexure-5 far determining the surplus lands with the Petitioner after adding there with the lands of the Petitioner's mother. Accordingly, the Tahasildar, determined the ceiling surplus lands with the Petitioner after amalgamating his lands, with that of her mother vide his order in Annexure-6. 4. The Petitioner failed to get any relief from the appellate authority, Additianal District Magistrate (O.P. No. ) who. dismissed the appeal by his order in Annexure-7, as also from the revisional authority vide order in Annexure-8 5. On a perusal of the orders in Annexures 5 to 8, it is obvious that the revenue authorities have misdirected themselves in considering the validity of the registered deed of settlement (Annexure-I). dismissed the appeal by his order in Annexure-7, as also from the revisional authority vide order in Annexure-8 5. On a perusal of the orders in Annexures 5 to 8, it is obvious that the revenue authorities have misdirected themselves in considering the validity of the registered deed of settlement (Annexure-I). In my considered opinion, it is not at all necessary to enter into the question of determining the validity or otherwise of Annexure-l inasmuch as the mother of the Petitioner by virtue of her awn rights under the Hindu Law became entitled to a share equal to that of the Petitioner an the death of her husband in the year 194,6 in her own rights under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1931. Even assuming far the sake of argument that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the Petitioner and her mother, the lands falling to her share in law could not be amalgamated by the revenue authorities with that of the Petitioner while determining the ceiling surplus land as mother is not covered within the definition of 'family' in Section 37B of the Act. 6. From the above discussions, it is manifest that the revenue authorities have completely misdirected themselves in applying the law correctly to the facts of the present case while determining the surplus lands in the hands of the Petitioner. 7. The writ application is allowed and the impugned orders in Annexures 5 to 8 are hereby quashed. In the circumstances however. I make no order as to costs. P.C. Misra,J. 8. I agree. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed