- (1.) The point which is time and again before the court for consideration is when the property vests under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (for short, the 1972 Act), if there had been no declaration already either under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act or the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955. Section 12 is a vesting provision under the 1972 Act. Section 12(1) reads as under:-- "12. Vesting of Surplus Area. - (1) The surplus area of a landowner shall, from the date on which it is declared as such shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government for a public purpose (Vide Act No. 17 of 1976) and all rights, title and interest (including the contingent interest, if any, recognized by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force) of all persons in such area shall stand extinguished and such rights, title and interest shall vest in the State Government free from any encumbrance: Provided that where any land within the permissible area of the mortgagor is mortgaged with possession and falls within the surplus area of the mortgagee, only the mortgagee rights shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the same shall vest in it. (2).... (3).... (4)..." The underlined portion was brought through Act 40 of 1976 substituting earlier provision that contained an expression 'from the date when the property was taken possession'. Section 12(3) of the Act details a different situation of the relevance of an appointed date as to the date of vesting if there has been already a declaration of surplus area either made under Punjab Law or Pepsu Law which had not so far vested with the State Government. We are not dealing with the situation of any earlier vesting but we are dealing with a situation of when the vesting of the property of Brij Bhushan Singal falls for consideration. The first time when a declaration was made was on 19.06.1976 finding that an extent of 144 kanals 12 marlas had been treated as surplus. This order was challenged in an appeal and the appeal was allowed on 31.10.1979 remanded for a fresh consideration. In the meanwhile, the son Brij Bhushan Singal had become major and he wanted a fresh reckoning to be made in the light of the definition of "family" that included only a husband, wife and minor children or any two or more of them. The contention by the son was that he had become major before the declaration had become complete and hence, a separate unit has to be provided for him and a fresh reckoning made. This contention was rejected. I find by a reading of Section 12(1) of the 1972 Act, it admits no ambiguity that till a property is declared as surplus under the 1972 Act, if there had been no declaration already under the Punjab Law or the Pepsu Law. It is the date of declaration that would be material. If the declaration itself has not become complete and final by pendency of proceedings, then the authority has to take note of the events such as, succession, transfer or anyone of the members becoming major for consideration of a fresh reckoning. The order rejecting a claim of the son to seek for a separate unit is erroneous. It is quashed. The authorities shall issue fresh notice and seek for declaration under Section 9 from the landowners including the son of the original landowner who had become a major and make a proper reckoning therefor. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.;