ORDER V.N. Khare, J. - By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have challenged the orders dated 19-5-1981 and 20-10-1981 passed by prescribed authority Haldwani and Learned civil Judge. Nainital respectively. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are these : A notice under S. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to Vidyabhushan, main tenure-holder. Vidyabhushan preferred objections. The petitioners and other persons also preferred objections. Petitioners had laid their claim on different plots of land on the basis of adverse possession. The objection of petitioners and others were rejected by the prescribed Authority. The petitioners, other objectors and main tenure holder Vidyabhushan preferred separate appeals. All these appeals were rejected- by the learned Civil Judge, Nainital by judgment dated 23-3-1977. The petitioners filed a writ petition but same was dismissed by this Court. In the said writ petition it was finally decided by this court that the petitioners had no right to the land claimed by them. The main tenure holder Vidyabhushan on the basis of judgment indicated his choice of surplus land under S. 12-A of the Act. The petitioners objected the choice indicated by the tenure holder but the same was rejected by the prescribed authority. The petitioners' appeals were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. 3. The case of the petitioners is that since they were held to be tenure holders by virtue of a decree passed by the revenue court in the year 1975, the land held by them should not have been allowed to be given in choice by the tenure holder as surplus land in view of cl. (d) of the proviso to S. 12-A of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case relied upon a decision of Supreme Court reported in 1981 All LJ 1139. After having perused the impugned judgment I am of view that the prescribed Authority and the appellate court were' justified in holding that in the present case cl. (d) of proviso to S. 12-A was. not applicable. In Smt. Kunwar Rani Sushila Devi v. State of U.P., 1978 All LJ 1099 it has been held that S. 5(6) of the Act is applicable to the transfers made between 24-1-1971 and 8-6-1973, which is the date of commencement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. (d) of proviso to S. 12-A was. not applicable. In Smt. Kunwar Rani Sushila Devi v. State of U.P., 1978 All LJ 1099 it has been held that S. 5(6) of the Act is applicable to the transfers made between 24-1-1971 and 8-6-1973, which is the date of commencement of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Similar view was taken by this court in Tej Singh v. 2nd Addl. District Judge, 1981 All LJ 842. In view of the interpretation of law laid down by this court it is manifest that cl. (d) of proviso to S. 12-A which refers to transfers under S. 5(6) of the Act will not be applicable in case where the transfers have been made after 8-6-1973. On the date when this Act came into force i.e. 8-6-1973 Vidyabhushan was a tenure holder of the land in dispute. The petitioners were held to be tenure-holders of the plot in dispute by virtue of a decree passed by the revenue court in the year 1975 much after 8-6-1973. Any decree passed after the enforcement of the Act does not confer any right in favour of decree holder for purposes of this Act. If the decree holder has otherwise any right he can enforce it and same is not affected by decision given with reference to this Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to furnish any material to show that the sale deeds involved in the Supreme Court case were after 8-6-1973. Under such circumstances the Supreme Court decision relied upon by petitioners' counsel is of no help to his case. 5. The land in dispute was rightly included in the holding of Vidyabhushan, main tenure holder. Since under S. 12-A of the Act a tenure holder has a right to give choice of surplus land, the prescribed Authority was justified in accepting the choice indicated by the main tenure-holder Vidhyabhushan. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.