Plain meaning of statutory definitions upheld as provisos cannot be expanded by judicial rewriting of the text.

A clear statutory definition must be given its ordinary and grammatical meaning, and a proviso or exception cannot be expanded by inserting words into the text. Applying that principle, the Court upheld the plain meaning of "family" in Section 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 and rejected the attempt to exclude lands of sons separated by partition before 26 September 1970. The constitutional challenge also failed because the ceiling and surplus-land scheme was held to have a direct nexus with the agrarian policy reflected in Article 39(b). The definition was upheld as written and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "family" in Section 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 could be construed to exclude lands of sons who had separated by partition before 26 September 1970, by reading the provision as if the word "or" were inserted between "major" and "married". (ii) Whether Section 37(b) was vulnerable to constitutional challenge on the ground that it lacked nexus with the policy of the State under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "family" in Section 37(b) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 could be construed to exclude lands of sons who had separated by partition before 26 September 1970, by reading the provision as if the word "or" were inserted between "major" and "married".

Analysis: The definition of "family" was held to be clear and unambiguous on its plain language. The Court treated the latter part of the definition as an exception carved out by way of proviso and not as a fresh substantive enactment. It was emphasized that where the statutory words are meaningful and definite, the Court cannot add words or omit words in the guise of interpretation. The suggested reading would also create anomalies inconsistent with the scheme of ceiling legislation and with the express words "as such" in the exception.

Conclusion: The provision had to be construed according to its plain meaning, and the appellants' construction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 37(b) was vulnerable to constitutional challenge on the ground that it lacked nexus with the policy of the State under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Act was part of agrarian reform and the scheme for declaration and distribution of surplus land was held to be directed towards securing the principles in Article 39(b). On that footing, Section 37(b) had a direct nexus with the statutory policy and could not be assailed on the suggested constitutional ground. The challenge was also considered in the backdrop of the protective constitutional setting applicable to such legislation.

Conclusion: The constitutional objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory definition of "family" was upheld as written, the constitutional challenge failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear statutory definition must be given its ordinary and grammatical meaning, and a proviso or exception cannot be expanded by inserting words or by rewriting the provision under the guise of interpretation.

---