JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This writ application is directed against the order passed by the Land Reforms Commissioner in O.L.R. Revision No. 16 of 1993 refusing to make a reference to the Member, Board of Revenue, u/s 59 (2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the "O.L.R. Act"). It appears that a ceiling proceeding was initiated against Narasingha Hota, present opposite party No. 4. It is not disputed that the aforesaid Narasingha Hota had four sons including the two Petitioners and one married daughter. Ten standard acres of land was allotted. After the finalisation of the proceeding, one appeal was filed by opposite party No. 5 contending that he was a major, married and separated son prior to the appointed date, that is to say, 26-9-1970, and as such a separate ceiling should have been given to him. Such contention was accepted in appeal and he was considered as a separate ceiling holder and the properties allotted to him were excluded from the ceiling of his father. Thereafter, the present Petitioners had filed an application before the Land Reforms Commissioner for making a reference to the Member, Board of Revenue, claiming that they should be treated as separate ceiling holders. The said application registered as O.L.R. Revision No. 16 of 1993 having been rejected, the present writ application has been filed. 2. Section 37(a) of the O.L. R. Act lays down that a "person" includes family. Section 37(b) lays down that "family" includes children whether major or minor, "but does not includes a major married son who as such had separated by partition or otherwise before the 26th day of September, 1970". In other words, in order to be considered as a separate ceiling holder, a son must be major, married and must have separated prior to 1970. Even if an unmarried major son is separated prior to 26-9-1970, he would be considered as a member of his father's family, in spite of the fact that he was separated. 3. In the present case, there is no allegation in the writ application that the two Petitioners were major and married prior to 26-9-1970. of course, it has been stated that there was a partition on 10-10-1969, which is prior to the appointed date. However, there is no allegation that prior to 26-9-1970, the Petitioners were married. 3. In the present case, there is no allegation in the writ application that the two Petitioners were major and married prior to 26-9-1970. of course, it has been stated that there was a partition on 10-10-1969, which is prior to the appointed date. However, there is no allegation that prior to 26-9-1970, the Petitioners were married. The age of the Petitioners has been given as 46 and 45 in the year 1996 and even if it is assumed that in September, 1970, possibly they were major and had separated, in the absence of any allegation that they were also married prior to 26-9-1970, they will not be entitled to separate ceiling. In this connection, the relevant assertion made in the writ application may be quoted: 3. That, one ceiling Case No. 1112 of 1977 initiated against Narasingha Hota, the father of the present Petitioners in the year 1977, Draft statement was published on 17-10-1979 and confirmed on 20-02-1980. It is the admitted fact that the present Petitioners were the major members of the family of Narasingha against whom the said O.L. R. Case was initiated. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of initiation of the O.L.R. Case even though the Petitioners were major, married and separated the courts below have never inquired about these facts nor they were impleaded as necessary parties and no notice issued upon them. (Emphasis given) 5....At the same time it is also equally illegal in allotting 10 standard acres of land in favour of father, opp. party No. 4 by ignoring the Petitioners, those who were major married sons at the time of the initiation of the ceiling case. (Emphasis added) The emphasized portion clearly indicates that there is no allegation that the two Petitioners had married prior to the appointed date. The observation of the Commissioner that their father had not made any claim that these two sons were major, married and separated appears to be reasonable. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that an opportunity should be given to the Petitioners to establish their case. However, since the Petitioners themselves have not claimed that they were married prior to 26-9-1970, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that as they had been separated, their properties are likely to be vested. However, since the Petitioners themselves have not claimed that they were married prior to 26-9-1970, no useful purpose will be served by remanding the matter. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that as they had been separated, their properties are likely to be vested. Since in law, father and three other sons were considered to be members of family, it goes without saying that the present Petitioners would be entitled to their shares in the ceiling allotted to their father. This right they can exercise amicably or by filing suit for partition. In such view of the matter, there is no necessity to refer the matter to the member, Board of Revenue, u/s 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act. 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ applition is disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Writ application disposed of.