JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. Filing the writ petition the petitioners have assailed the impugned order vide Annexure-3 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack in exercise of power under Section 59(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”). 2. Short background involved in the case is a draft statement prepared following the provisions of the Act showing Ac.81.02 decimals of land in village-Charbahal and Goudchhendia besides Ac.2.37 decimals of homestead and Munda Adi lands in the above two villages. The statement was published on 06.02.1975 showing 13.71 standard acres or Ac.51.02 decimals as surplus while 30 acres equivalent to 10 standard acres to be retained by the Landlord, predecessor-in-interest of this petitioner’s family, Sri Radhakrishna Panda filed objection on 06.03.1975 stating, inter-alia, that three sons were married and separated, as such, were entitled to separate shares. On enquiry, it revealed that three sons of the landholder were married, major and were in separate cultivating possession of their respective lands prior to the appointed date (26.09.1970). It was further pleaded that at the relevant time total land came to Ac.139.91 decimals including 2 acres gifted to Charbahal school, Ac.54.57 decimals purchased in the name of sons, Ac.1.95 decimals received from his brother by way of partition and Ac.14.44 decimals of lands were gifted to the married daughter out of the shares of the sons after partition. O.L.R. Case No.173 of 1975 was registered. The Revenue Officer, opposite party no.3 on scrutiny of documents and based on local enquiry report, came to a conclusion that there is no ceiling surplus land and, accordingly, dropped the case by virtue of his order dated 02.11.1975. Opposite party no.2, the Collector moved the opposite party no.1 under Section 59(2) of the Act. As a consequence, O.L.R Revision No.69 of 1983 got dismissed directing to examine; (i) the age of the second and third sons mentioned to be 22 and 20 years in the objection petition filed on 06.03.1975 and they were not major on 26.09.1970; (ii) Revenue officer did not make any enquiry; (iii) there is a registered Sale Deed of 1972 where the age of second son is noted as 15 years. Therefore, the second and third son were minor on the appointed date; (iv) the objection of the landholder did not state that any son was married; (v) there was no documentary evidence of partition and gift to the daughter; (vi) any land given to the daughter cannot be excluded from the father’s holding considering that there was no mention that the transfer was made before or after the appointed date; (vii) lands acquired in the name of the sons after the appointed date cannot be excluded as this has to be treated as a part of the properties of the landholder. Considering all these above the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack vide Annexure-1 on disposal of the revision setting aside the order of the Revenue Officer, remanded the case for fresh enquiry. Based on the remand order, opposite party no.3 again disposed of O.L.R. Case No.173 of 1975 after holding a fresh enquiry and observing that the land gifted by the landowner to his daughter at the time of her marriage on 06.05.1962 prior to the appointed date has to be excluded with further observation that the family of Kanchanamala including self, one unmarried son and three married daughters entitled to retain 10 standard acres of land and she was holding less than 10 standard acres, family of Bimbadhar Panda consisting of 4 members including self, wife and two sons is entitled to 10 standard acres and they were holding less than 10 standard acres. Family of Pramod Kumar Panda consisting of 4 members including himself, wife and two daughters holds less than 10 standard acres of land. Family of Aditya Kumar Panda consisting of 4 members including self, wife and two sons is also entitled to retain 10 standard acres of land and the balance 0.63 standard acres of land equivalent to Ac.1.89 decimals of Class-III lands vest with the Government as clearly borne from Annexure-2. Facts revealed, opposite party no.2 once again moved the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack under Section 59(2) of the Act requiring revision of the order under Annexure-2. Based on the reference made by the Collector under Section 59(2) for initiation of a proceeding under Section 59(2) of the Act, OLR Case No.5 of 1999 was registered and decided by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. In the meantime, Radhakrushna Panda, the original landowner breathed his last on 25.06.1977. Based on the reference made by the Collector under Section 59(2) for initiation of a proceeding under Section 59(2) of the Act, OLR Case No.5 of 1999 was registered and decided by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. In the meantime, Radhakrushna Panda, the original landowner breathed his last on 25.06.1977. Thus, the matter was decided only hearing the L.Rs. of Radhakrushna Panda. By order dated 23.05.2003, the learned Member, Board of Revenue disposed of the case setting aside the order under Annexure-2 and again remanding the matter to the original authority for fresh disposal of O.L.R. Case No.173 of 1975. 3. Challenging the remand order, Shri Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land gifted in favour of the married daughter being taken place prior to the appointed date is to be excluded while making the computation of the ceiling surplus land and this fact having been concluded it was no more open to the opposite party no.3 to take a different view. Shri Dash, learned counsel also submitted that while remanding the case to the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-1, the opposite party no.1 not only directed the Revenue Officer to make an enquiry regarding the date of marriage of the married daughter involving the gift deed but also remanded the case for fresh enquiry and disposal of the matter in accordance with law and further taking into account the various issues involved therein. Thus, it becomes clear that the opposite party no.1 had not concluded any of the issues involving O.L.R Revision Case No.69 of 1983. It is under the circumstance, Shri Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order of remand becomes bad and ought to be interfered with and set-aside. Taking reliance of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Anusuya Rath and others vrs. State of Orissa and another, reported in 1988 (II) OLR 410, submitted that for the decision therein there was no occasion for the Member, Board of Revenue for directing to consider the aspect of property held by a married daughter admittedly assigned to the appointed date and contended that this property should have been excluded requiring no further enquiry or adjudication of the matter. 4. 4. Shri A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties though did not raise any objection on the point of law being raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, but taking this Court to the decision of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, submitted that for the observations therein, there appears, there is no infirmity in the impugned order requiring any interference by this Court. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the order involving the proceeding under Section 59(2) of the Act appearing at Annexure-3, this Court, on consideration of the fact material available, observes that the gifted land measuring Ac.14.14 decimals should not have clubbed with the total land of the ceiling holder while disposing of the case. It is only on the premises that such property cannot be excluded from the ceiling proceeding, the learned Member, Board of Revenue remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of the case by the Revenue Officer involved OLR Case No.173 of 1975. Finding that the sole grievance of the petitioner for exclusion of the property gifted in favour of the married daughter prior to the appointed date from the ceiling surplus land, this Court on whole examination of the matter, finds there is no dispute that the daughter had not only married prior to the appointed date, the marriage taking place on 06.05.1962, but the gift in favour of such married daughter had also been taken place at the time of her marriage definitely much prior to the appointed date. It appears, the marriage as well as the gift having taken place prior to the appointed date, said property was no more available to be considered while taking of the case of the ceiling surplus land of the family. 6. Taking into consideration of a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Anusuya Rath (supra), this Court taking a similar situation in paragraphs-14 and 16 of the said decision held as follows :- “14. The policy decision taken in the Chief Ministers’ Conference, 1973, as indicated earlier, would also provide a clue for solving the problem as to what were the circumstances taken into consideration for defining ‘family’, namely, the rural set up in the region. The policy decision taken in the Chief Ministers’ Conference, 1973, as indicated earlier, would also provide a clue for solving the problem as to what were the circumstances taken into consideration for defining ‘family’, namely, the rural set up in the region. Obviously, taking that as an indication to assist in solving the problem, I am inclined to come to the conclusion that the concept of ‘family’ which was artificially defined in the Statute has deliberately omitted to speak anything regarding a married daughter. The definition as such does not, in my view, cause an obstruction or occasion any conflict for taking such a view. Even applying the principles underlying Article 14 of the Constitution, when the legislature specifically intended to exclude a major married son who had separated by partition before the appointed date, there would be no justification for not giving the same privilege or benefit to a married daughter who by virtue of her marriage stands at a more distant place than a separated son on partition from the joint family. A harmonious construction being the essence of the rule of interpretation, I would unhesitatingly hold that a daughter, who is already married by the appointed date, would not come under the definition of ‘family’. Once this view is taken, it must be held that both the decisions of this Court referred to earlier in paragraph-9 taking a contrary view do not lay down the correct law. 16. For the above reasons, the answer to the question posed above is given in favour of the petitioners, namely, that the properties of a daughter married prior to the appointed date cannot be aggregated with the property of the ‘family’ of the father.” 7. For the decision of the Full Bench observing that property gifted in favour of a married daughter since held as a separate family cannot be included in the family property and, therefore, such property is no more available to be considered deciding a case of ceiling surplus land involving the original family. In these circumstances, this Court finds, there is no proper consideration of the case by the learned Member, Board of Revenue who had failed in appreciating the above legal aspect of the matter. In these circumstances, this Court finds, there is no proper consideration of the case by the learned Member, Board of Revenue who had failed in appreciating the above legal aspect of the matter. As a result, this Court interfering in the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue vide Annexure-3 directs the ceiling surplus proceeding so far as the gift property involving the daughter gifted on the marriage of the daughter on 06.05.1962 much prior to the appointed date, i.e., 26.09.1970 will be treated to be a closed chapter and cannot be taken as a part of the ceiling surplus land. 8. The writ petition succeeds with setting aside of the order under Annexure-3 and with the declaration hereinabove. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.