Tarun Chatterjee, J.
1. Can an adopted son be considered to be a 'Son' within the meaning of 'family' as defined m Section 14-K(c) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short 'Act') is the question that needs to be decided in this writ application.
2. A proceeding under Section 14(T) of the Act was started by the Revenue Officer, Settlement 'B' Camp, Contai, District Midnapore (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue Officer) against the writ petitioner which came to be registered as 7A Case No. 175/14T of 1978. By an order and/or judgment passed in the aforesaid case, the Revenue Officer determined the ceiling limit of the lands that may be retained by the writ petitioner under the Act and while determining such ceiling limit, the Revenue Officer has held that an adopted son of a raiyat cannot be as a son considered as within the meaning of 'family' as defined in Section 14K(c) of the Act, for the purpose of calculating the ceiling limit of lands under section 14(M) of the Act.
(3) Feeling aggrieved by the final order passed by the Revenue Officer disposing of the aforesaid case and determining the ceiling limit of lands under the Act the writ petitioner has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the same.
4. The Act provides in Chapter IIB for determination of ceiling area of a raiyat and vesting of land in excess of such ceiling area of such raiyat. The ceiling area is determined with reference to 'family' of a raiyat. Section 14(K)(c) of the Act defines 'family' of a raiyat, which is as follows :
'14K(c)-'family' in relation to a raiyat, shall be deemed to :
(i) himself and his wife, minor sons, unmarried daughters, if any,
(ii) his unmarried adult son, if any, who does not hold any land as a raiyat,
(iii) his married adult son, if any, where neither such adult son nor the wife nor any minor son or unmarried daughter of such adult son holds any land as a raiyat,
(iv) widow of his pre-deceased son, if any, where neither suih widow nor any minor son or unmarried daughter of such widow holds any land as a raiyat, but shall not include any other person,
(v) minor son or unmarried daughter, if any, of his pre-deceased son, where the widow of such pre-deceased son is dead and any minor son or unmarried daughter of such pre-deceased son does not hold any land as a raiyat.'
5. On a perusal of Section 14K(c) of the Act it is evident that only for determination of ceiling area of a raiyat, the 'family' of a raiyat shall include persons named in Section 14K(c) of the Act. Ceiling limit is fixed under Section 14(M) of the Act for a raiyat having a 'family' consisting of two or more but not more than five members as 5.00 standard hertares, Where the members of the family of a raiyat exceed five members then for each member in excess of five, a raiyat is entitled to own 0.50 standard hectare more. But the aggregate for ceiling area for such raiyat shall not in any case, exceed 7 standard hectares. Therefore, it is seen that a raiyat having a family of more than 5 members is entitled to own 0.50 standard hectare of land for each of the members of his family subject, of course, to the highest limit of 7 standard hectares of land.
6. In view of the above, now if it is found that an 'adopted son' is also a member of the family of the writ petitioner then the writ petitioner would be entitled to own 0.50 standard hectare of land more provided members of the writ petitioner's family exceed five in number.
7. By the order under challenge in this writ application the Revenue Officer determined the ceiling limit of the lands to be retained by the writ petitioner by holding that the 'adopted son' of the writ petitioner cannot be said to be a member of his 'family.'
8. In my view, for the determination of the ceiling area of a raiyat, an 'adopted son' of a raiyat, who was adopted before the date of vesting, i.e. on or before 15th February, 1971, is a member of 'family' of such raiyat. The reasons are as follows :
9. As noted earlier, Section 14K(c) of the Act defines 'family' of a raiyat. Therefore, the only question that needs to be seen is whether an 'adopted son' is a member of the family of a raiyat within the meaning of Section 14K(c) of the Act. From the definition of 'family' as defined in Section 14K(c) of the Act, it appears that 'sons or daughters,' as mentioned therein, would include the natural born sons or daughters but it does not expressly exclude 'adopted sons or daughters' from the definition of 'family.' In the absence of express exclusion of 'adopted sons or daughters' from the definition is Section 14K(c) of the Act and in the absence of any definition being provided for 'son or daughter' in the Act itself, let us now consider whether an 'adopted son or daughter' is at par with a 'natural born son or daughter' for the determination of ceiling area of a raiyat under Chapter II-B of the Act.
10. Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 provides general rules of succession in the case of males. Section 8 reads as follows :
'8. The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter-
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relative specified in Class I of the Schedule ;
(b) ..............'
The relatives specified in Class I of the Schedule are as follows :
'Son; daughter; widow; mother; son of a predeceased son; daughter of a predeceased son; son of a predeceased daughter, daughter of a predeceased daughter, widow of a predeceased son; son of a predeceased son of a preceased son; daughter of a predeceased son of a predeceased son; widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.'
In Class I of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, 'son or daughter' has not been defined nor does it expressly say that a 'son' or a 'daughter' means only ^natural born son or daughter' of a person and not an 'adopted son or daughter' of a person. Therefore, in my view, the adopted son or daughter of a raiyat has the same right as that of a natural born son or daughter of a raiyat.
11. Apart from that The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 recognises the case of adoption by a male Hindu. Under Section 7 of the Act, a right has been conferred to a male Hindu to adopt a son or a daughter. The effect of adoption are laid down in Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956, which runs as follows :
'12. An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his adpotive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family :
Provided that-
(a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth ;
(b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the families of his or her birth ;
(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.'
13. On perusal of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 there cannot be any doubt in one's mind that an 'adopted child' is deemed to be the child of his/her adoptive father or otherwise for all purposes with effect from the date of adoption and it cannot also be disputed that the 'adopted child' cannot claim from his/her respective father as a natural born child because of his/her ties with the family of birth are deemed to be severed from the date of adoption.
14. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Adoption Act) also clearly says that no valid adoption can be cancelled. Section 15 runs as follows :
'15. No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as 6uch and return to the family of his or her birth.'
15. On a perusal of Section 15 of the Adoption Act it is seen that no adoption, which has been validity made, can neither be cancelled by the adoptive father, mother or any other person nor can the adopted child renounce his/her status and return, to the family of, his/her birth.
16. From the discussions made hereinabove and considering the relevant provisions of the Adoption Act there cannot be any doubt that an adopted child shall inherit the properties of his/her adoptive father or mother as an heir and legal representative of his/her deceased adoptive father or mother. It is also clear that when a valid adoption is made such adoption cannot be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother and at the same time the adopted child cannot renounce his/her status after adoption and return to his natural family.
17. Such being the position, it must be held than an 'adopted child' must be considered to be a member of a raiyat who has adopted him as, the 'adopted child' soon after valid adoption, severs all his/her ties with his/her natural family and he/she cannot inherit any property on the death of his/her natural father or mother. In view of Section 12 of the Adoption Act that an adopted child severs all his/her connections with the natural family as soon as a valid adoption is made, he/she must be treated as a Class I heir of a deseased male Hindu and, therefore, must be treated at par with the natural heir and legal representative of a deceased who had adopted him. It cannot be the intention of the legislature that when an adopted child losses all his/her right of inheritance in respect of the property of his/her natural family, if a valid adoption is made, and becomes a member of the family of the raiyat who had adopted him/her, the adopted child, at the same time, losses his right to inherit the properties of his/her adoptive father or mother as well.
18. For the foregoing reasons, it must be hold that an 'adopted son' of a raiyat is also a 'son' as mentioned in Section 14K(c) of the Act for the purpose of determining the ceiling area of such raiyat.
19. Accordingly, I hold that the Revenue Officer had committed a grave mistake in law by holding that an 'adopted son' is not a member of the 'family' of the raiyat. The impugned order, passed by the Revenue Officer, is thus set aside and the matter be sent back for re-hearing to the Revenue Officer with the following directions :
(1) The Revenue Officer shall permit the writ petitioner to prove the case of adoption in accordance with law and/or permit the writ petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his case of adoption.
(2) If the adoption is proved to be valid in law then the further question that has to be considered by the Revenue Officer is that whether such adoption was made on or before the date of vesting :
(3) If it is proved that a valid adoption was made on or before the date of vesting the Revenue Officer shall allow the writ petitioner to own 2,50 standard hectare more land in addition to the land already allowed to be owned by the writ petitioner in the impugned order of vesting.
20. The impugned order under challenge is set aside. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Mentioned)
Let xerox copy of this order be given to the learned advocate appearing for the parties on usual undertaking.