JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 17.8.1992 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Cuttack in O.L.R. Revision Case No.10/1989, vide Annexure-8 in a proceeding following Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act,1960. 2. The short background of this case is that the petitioners are the father and son and residents of Kalahandi District. A suo motu ceiling proceeding bearing Ceiling Case No.19/1987 was initiated under Section 42 of the O.L.R. Act, 1960 against them. During continuance of the said proceeding, the Revenue Officer, Kalahandi, O.P.1 published a draft statement showing some surplus land occupied by the petitioners. The petitioners filed their objection making a clear statement that petitioner no.2 has married and is a major son being stayed separately and he is in occupation of separate shares of the joint family property, consequently, both the petitioners are entitled to certain shares pending adjudication of the Ceiling Case No.19/1987. Local investigation was made and after recording the statements of at least five witnesses as appearing at Annexure-2 series, a report was submitted by the Revenue Officer on 15.1.1988 (Annexure-3) supporting the claim of the petitioners and establishing a case of complete separation between petitioner nos.1 & 2 so also observing that both of them are occupying the disputed land in different shares. Based on the submissions of the parties and considering the report of the Revenue Inspector, Ceiling Case No.19/1987 was disposed of by the Revenue Officer & Tahasildar, Kalahandi allowing it in favour of the petitioners. Considering the judgment passed in O.L.R. Case No.19/1987, the District Magistrate, Kalahandi made a reference of the dispute under Section 59(2) of the O.L.R. Act, which was registered as O.L.R. Revision Case No.10/1989 and the Member, Board of Revenue by order dated 5.2.1990 appearing at Annexure-5 allowed the reference. This proceeding was decided on contest delivering a judgment against the petitioners. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court in O.J.C. No.1763/1991. This proceeding was decided on contest delivering a judgment against the petitioners. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners approached this Court in O.J.C. No.1763/1991. This writ petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court after observing that the Board of Revenue before initiating the proceeding required to be satisfied with the case to the effect that the case requires its interference and expresses that interference in the original orders will be where there is flagrant misconception of law apparent from the order or palpably erroneous assessment of evidence or misreading and misconstruction of the statutory provisions etc. In allowing the writ petition this Court however ultimately directed as follows :- “Accordingly, the writ application is allowed, the order dated 5.2.90 of the Member, Board of Revenue in O.L.R. Revision Case No.10 of 1989 (Annexure-6) is quashed and the case is remitted to the said authority for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order for costs of this proceeding.” Consequent upon remittance of this proceeding, the Member, Board of Revenue, upon fresh hearing of the matter concluded the proceeding in O.L.R. Revision Case No.10/1989 by order dated 17.8.1992, vide Annexure-8, thereby allowing the case holding that the petitioners are in occupation of ceiling surplus land. 4. Assailing the impugned order dated 17.8.1992, Mr.N.C.Panigrahi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contended first of all that the Member, Board of Revenue has not considered the matter keeping in mind the direction given by this Court in disposal of the earlier writ petition. Secondly, looking at the clear and cogent evidence recorded during enquiry at the original stage and for the observation made in the report of the competent authority at the initial stage, the findings of the Member, Board of Revenue, remain in opposite. Further, the Member, Board of Revenue has construed the meaning of holding property separately by the parties and misconstrued it to be by way of an effective partition. In the above premises, while opposing the findings of the Member, Board of Revenue, Mr.Panigrahi, learned senior counsel, taking reliance on paragraph-7 of a decision of this Court in Sankarsan Misra & others vrs. In the above premises, while opposing the findings of the Member, Board of Revenue, Mr.Panigrahi, learned senior counsel, taking reliance on paragraph-7 of a decision of this Court in Sankarsan Misra & others vrs. State of Orissa & Others, reported in 56(1983) CLT 463, justifying his submission contended that the findings of the Member, Board of Revenue on the question of partition/separation being contrary to law is liable to be interfered with and set aside. Mr.Panigrahi, learned Senior Counsel, taking reliance of paragraph-13 of another decision of this Court in Ramnarayan Ram & Others vrs. Revenue Officer-cum-Tahasildar, Darpan & Others, reported in 71(1991) CLT 843, justified his contention with regard to the scope of holding the properties separately and contended that his contention is well founded by the above two decisions. 5. Mr.Pani, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the opposite parties, supporting the judgment passed by the Member, Board of Revenue under Annexure-8 contended that in view of the clear statement of at least two of the witnesses available under Annexure-2 series disclosing that petitioner no.2 is staying separately for last 10-12 years, contended that the petitioners remained unable to satisfy their separate possession in respect of petitioner no.2, and therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Member, Board of Revenue. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds from Annexure-2 series that there is no dispute with regard to marriage of petitioner no.2 taking place thirty years prior to initiation of the proceeding, which is again prior to the appointed date, i.e., 26.7.1970 under the O.L.R. Act. There is also no dispute with regard to the separate staying of petitioners no.1 & 2 and further they are possessing lands separately with separate mess. Be that as it may, looking at the provision contained in Section 37(b) of the O.L.R. Act, it is now to be seen as to whether the petitioners have satisfied the separate possession of holding the disputed property prior to the appointed date under the O.L.R. Act having a separate mess. Looking at the statement recorded during preliminary stage of the proceeding in O.L.R. Case No.19/1987, this Court finds no inconsistency among all the witnesses with regard to separate staying of petitioner no.2 after his marriage and separate holding of the land. Looking at the statement recorded during preliminary stage of the proceeding in O.L.R. Case No.19/1987, this Court finds no inconsistency among all the witnesses with regard to separate staying of petitioner no.2 after his marriage and separate holding of the land. Even going through the statements available at Annexure-2 series, this Court also finds from the statements of all the five witnesses that there is no inconsistency with regard to each of the witnesses stating that there is a difference between the parties, particularly, petitioner no.2 resulting separate maintenance and staying of petitioner nos.1 & 2. Except two of the witnesses having a very minor deviation to the effect that to their knowledge the separation between the parties appearing to be 10-12 years behind the initiation of the proceeding. These witnesses being outsiders the discrepancy in their statements may be minor discrepancy and cannot weigh much. Further since the matter is decided on the basis of the statement of the local persons, three witnesses have categorically stated that there is a complete separation between the parties prior to the appointed date. Besides the State Authority had also no material or information from their source to disprove the contention with regard to petitioner no.2 possessing the land separately and in his exclusive possession prior to the appointed date. Looking at the memorandum of enquiry submitted by the Revenue Inspector under Annexure-3, this Court also finds that in appreciation of the entire materials available on record and the information gathered from his spot visit, the Revenue Inspector has given the final observation in favour of the petitioners specifically recording not only their separate staying but also separately possessing the land prior to the appointed date. Annexure-3 being a public document has to benefit the petitioners. Annexure-3 being a public document has to benefit the petitioners. Looking at the observations of this Court made in the earlier writ petition, this Court finds the following categoric observation : “The Member, Board of Revenue before initiating the proceeding should be satisfied that the case requires its interference without intending to be exhaustive, such cases, in our view, will be where there is flagrant misconception of law apparent from the order or palpably erroneous assessment of evidence or misreading and misconstruction of the statutory provisions etc.” From the observations made in the aforesaid two decisions and from reading of the evidence as well as the report in favour of the petitioners by a public officer, this Court finds that the observation of the Member, Board of Revenue with regard to separate status of petitioner nos.1 & 2 is not only contrary to the materials available on record but also erroneous and illegal being contrary to the spirit of observation of this Court in 56(1983) CLT 463, where this Court held as follows :- “7. Separation is not synonymous with partition. Partition conceptually may be either partition of status or partition of property. Separation means separation in status. Separation in status may be accompanied or followed by partition of property but partition of property is not essential for separation in status. There can be separation in status by a mere unequivocal declaration to separate. The expression “partition” in section 37(b) denotes partition of property, i.e., division of property by metes and bounds. The revenue authorities, under section 37(b) of the Act are required to determine separation in status. And in 71(1991) CLT 843, where this Court has held as follows :- “13. Section 37(b) of the O.L.R. Act defines ‘family’ thus : “37(b) “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 word separation that occurs in 37(b) of the Act is not synonymous with partition. Separation means separation in status. It may be accompanied or followed by partition of property, but in some cases that is not essential for separation in status. There can be separation in status by a mere unequivocal declaration to separate. Separation means separation in status. It may be accompanied or followed by partition of property, but in some cases that is not essential for separation in status. There can be separation in status by a mere unequivocal declaration to separate. This view has been taken in a decision of this Court reported in 56(1983) CLT 463 (Sankarsan Misra & Others v. State of Orissa and others). Separation may be either by partition or otherwise because under the law severance of status can be made not only by partition, but by conduct, arbitration, conversion of religion, declaration of intention collectively or universally by a suit or renounciation.” 7. Consequently, this Court observes that the learned Member, Board of Revenue failed in appreciating the meaning of “separate possession”. Findings and the observations of the authority remaining contrary to law as well as materials available on record, this Court in interfering in the impugned order, vide Annexure-8 sets aside the same and restores the order passed in O.L.R. Case No.19/1987 appearing at Annexure-4. 8. The writ application accordingly stands allowed. The parties are to bear their own cost.