JUDGMENT The original petitioner was one Narendra Nath Dutta. He is now dead and has been substituted by his heirs and legal representatives, the present petitioners. The original petitioner came to this Court with a case hereinafter stated in brief. Out of agricultural land held by him, he sold an area of 1.57 acres to his daughter, Achalalakshmi Dey, by a registered conveyance dated March 22, 1956. He also transferred another area to his sons, Narayan Chandra Dutta and Sambhudeb Dutta, by a registered conveyance dated February 25, 1957. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his option for retention of land in form B and thereby elected to retain 16.73 acres of agricultural land, 5.45 acres of non• agricultural land and 38/7/16 acres of homestead land, in all 22.56/7/16 acres. 2. The transfers made by the original petitioner to his sons and daughter were held to be hit by section 5A(7) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and so far as the transfer made in favour of his sons was concerned, the following order was passed on September 8, 1958, under section 5A of the Act: Sri Narendra Nath Dutta, s/o Late Radha Ballav Dutta, the vendor and Sri Narayan Chandra Dutta and Sri Sambhudeb Dutta, the vendees appeared and produced the regd. deed No. 1671 dated 252.57. The vendees are the sons of the vendor. Though the transfer was made within the prohibited degree of relationship with an invariable intention to keep inflated amount of lands in his favour but it was made after the date of vesting. As such it seems to be beyond the scope of section 5A of the E.A. Act. On the date of vesting the transferred lands (as per schedule enclosed) were for the all purpose of Shri Narendra Nath Dutta, the vendor. So these lands should be included in calculating his ceiling". So far as transfer in favour of the daughter is concerned, the following order, dated August 10, 1957, was passed; "The transferor is a big raiyat and possesses 31.89 acres of land (as shown in the big raiyat statements), after transferring 1.57 acres of land to his daughter, the transferee, against a registered deed executed on 22.3.56. So there is prima facie reasons to believe that the transfer has been made with the object of relating land in excess of ceiling. So there is prima facie reasons to believe that the transfer has been made with the object of relating land in excess of ceiling. Hence the transfer is not bonafide under section 5A(2) of W.B.E.A. Act and the transfer of all the plots stands cancelled from the date on which it was made, as if from 22nd March 1956". The last order was not annexed either to the petition or to the affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Bankim Chandra Dutt, learned Additional Government Pleader, produced the last order from the records and I have made use of that order in this judgment, with the knowledge of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. 3. The B option form submitted by the original petitioner was considered in big raiyati case No.72 of 1958. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition that the original petitioner did not appear before the authority at that stage. Nevertheless he was allowed to retain 23.73 acres of agricultural land, .26 acres of non-agricultural land and .10 acres of homestead land. 4. The petitioner alleges that, in January 1961 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 10(2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act calling upon him to give up possession of lands in excess of the lands which he was allowed to retain. At one stage Mr. Bajpayee, learned Advocate for the petitioners wanted to make out the case that lands included in the B option form and lands transferred by the original petitioner to his sons and daughter were included in the notice under section 10(2) of the Act and the petitioner was wrongly asked to give up possession of such lands also. In fairness to Mr. Bajpayee, it roust be stated that he did not insist upon this argument later on. What Mr. Bajpayee contended was that the petitioners should be allowed to amend the option form and now to retain the lands permissible under the law. 5. I am unable to consider this prayer, all the more because of the provisions contained in the proviso to section 6(5) of the Act, which reads as follows: "Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall require an intermediary to exercise the choice if he has already done so before the date of coming into force the West Bengal Estates Acquisition (Second Amendment) Act, 1957". The petitioner has already exercised his option about retention. The petitioner has already exercised his option about retention. What he wanted to retain was given to him and possibly more. He cannot now make a second option and try to retain something more. 6. For the reasons given, I find no substance in the points urged by Mr. Bajpayee. This Rule is, therefore, discharged, but I make no order as to costs.