JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - The writ petition is at the instance of sons of Swaran Singh, 4 of whom were majors and one was a minor along with Swaran Singh, challenging the allotment of the land in favour of respondents 3 to 6 under the land ceiling laws. The admitted case is that the landowner’s holding was treated as surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 by the order of the Collector Agrarian, Ambala, dated 14.11.1966. He declared 6 standard acres 10 ¾ units of land as surplus. The petitioners 1 to 5 appeared to have filed a suit against their father for partition of 1/5th share each before the Civil Court and obtained a decree on 30.10.1969. According to the petitioners, after the decree was passed, the 6th petitioner remained the owner of merely 7 kanals-3 marlas, while each of the petitioners become entitled 42 kanals-15 marlas of chahi land, 66 kanals-17 marlas salab land and 4 kanals of gair mumkin land on the appointed day. A mutation was done on the basis of the Civil Court decree also. The contention of the petitioners was that the petitioners 1 to 3 were majors on the appointed day, namely, 24.01.1971 as well as on the date of enforcement of the Act on 22.12.1972. The property declared as surplus by the order of Collector dated 14.11.1966 had not been utilized and remained in possession of the petitioners till 23.01.1978 when an order of allotment was made in favour of the tenant under the Haryana Utilization of Surplus and other Areas Scheme of 1976. This allotment made by the authorities were without notice to the petitioners and hence not binding on them. The petitioners would contend that in terms of Section 6 of the Act, permissible area has to be determined as on the date when the Act came into force and even the order passed by the Collector on 14.11.1966 cannot have any effect. 2. The written statement is filed by the State through the Sub Divisional Officer contending that the 6th petitioner’s father had earlier filed a writ petition in CWP No.4324 of 1976 against the very same order and it was also rejected on 17.03.1977. The petitioners were also guilty of suppression of fact that they had been dispossessed after the allotment made to the tenants on 15.06.1982. The petitioners were also guilty of suppression of fact that they had been dispossessed after the allotment made to the tenants on 15.06.1982. A Civil Court decree itself was collusive one having been brought, subsequent to the order of the Collector. The area declared as surplus under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is deemed to have vested in the State with effect from the appointed day, namely, 24.01.1971 free of all encumbrances under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act of 1972. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim any benefit either under the old Punjab Act or under the Civil Court decree. 3. The area declared as surplus had been handed over to the allottees on 15.06.1982 and entry to that effect have also been made in rapat roznamcha Nos.371, 376 and 378. It is contended on behalf of the allottees that the writ petition claiming a fresh redetermination simply does not arise since Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972 is given retrospective effect. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the allottee refers me to a decision in Ram Swarup Versus S.N. Maira- 1999 AIR Supreme Court 941, that held that when a declaration of surplus is made under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and allotments had also been made and possession delivered, Section 12 (3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act of 1972 which has retrospective effect shall take effect from 23.12.1972 and it cannot suffer any modification by the fact of death of a landowner in the year 1976. Consequently, the legal heirs cannot claim any right on the basis that they are entitled to an individual ceiling limit on the ground that land has not been utilized. Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holding Act of 1972 vests the surplus land from the day on which it is declared as such. Clause 2 of Section 12 extinguishes the rights of the landowner from such date. Sub clause (3) states that the area declared as surplus under the Punjab law which has not so far vested shall also be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day. 4. In this case, the order of declaration of surplus has been made by the Collector on 14.11.1966. Sub clause (3) states that the area declared as surplus under the Punjab law which has not so far vested shall also be deemed to have vested in the State Government with effect from the appointed day. 4. In this case, the order of declaration of surplus has been made by the Collector on 14.11.1966. The order records the fact that the Collector had earlier through his order dated 20.06.1964 declared 15 standard acres and 1 ¾ units of land of the landlord as surplus. This was the subject of an appeal before the Land Commissioner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 and after a reconsideration, the Commissioner declared 11 standard acres and 8 units of land as surplus. The landowner again went on appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, who dismissed the appeal on 19.05.1965. He preferred the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, who remanded the case with an observation that the property exempted under banjar qadim should be left out reckoning while deciding the case for declaration of surplus area. The Collector was, therefore, taking the evidence of the Kanungo Agrarian and found that 3 standard acres and 4 ¾ units of land were banjar qadim as on 15.04.1953 and 1 standard acres and 8 ¼ of land had also been acquired by the Government. Deducting the above said two extents and allowing for 30 standard as permissible area, the remaining area of 6 standard acres and 10 ¾ units had alone been treated as surplus. Form-F had been prepared and handed over to the landowner. Significantly this order had never been challenged till the landowners suffered a collusive decree. 5. Further, the suit filed by 4 sons and securing a decree against the father providing for each one of them a share cannot have any effect. Section 23 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of 1953 itself lays down that “no decree or order of any court or authority and no notice of ejectment shall be valid, save to the extent to which it is consistent without the provisions of this Act.” The decree obtained subsequent to the order of the Collector was, therefore, invalid and inoperative. If the Civil Court decree was also to be rejected out of consideration on the day of coming into force of the Haryana law, the property which had been declared as surplus was liable to be treated as such surplus under the Act. In terms of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act of 1972. Under the circumstances, the petitioners’ action challenging the declaration made already by the Collector and seeking for redetermination does not simply arise. The allotments made by the Government in favour of the tenants cannot also be challenged. 6. The writ petition is vexatious and it is dismissed. -----------------