JUDGMENT - M.N. CHANDURKAR, J.:---The limited question raised in this petition is whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner that he should be permitted to have survey Nos. 78, 79, 31/B-2 delimited as surplus land. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal found that the petitioner held surplus land to the extent of 30 acres 19 gunthas. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal delimited Survey No. 62 and 6/A totalling 30 acres and 19 gunthas from Survey No. 79 which had an area of 15 acres 19 gunthas as surplus land. One of the contentions raised in the appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and which indeed appears to be the only contention seriously pressed before the Revenue Tribunal was that he was not given adequate opportunity to exercise his choice of retention. In the appeal, he offered survey Nos. 78, 79 and a part of 31/B-2 as surplus land. The Revenue Tribunal, however, held that the grievance that the choice was not permitted to be given was without substance, but it further took the view that the fields which the petitioner wanted to offer before the Revenue Tribunal stood in the name of the petitioners son Nagnath and were also in his possession. The Tribunal therefore, rejected the choice on the ground that the fields do not stand in the name of the petitioner. This petition is now filed by the petitioner challenging this decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The only contention raised in this petition by Mr. Bhadekar on behalf of the petitioner is that the Tribunal was not justified in law in rejecting the contention of the petitioner with regard to the choice of land to be retained and delimited as surplus land. Now, it is not possible to ascertain from the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal whether after the total holding of the petitioner and the extent of the surplus land was determined, the petitioner was called upon to give his choice of retention. It appears to me that but for the view which the Revenue Tribunal has taken that he petitioner was offering land which was not recorded in his own name, the Revenue Tribunal would have been inclined to give a fresh choice to the petitioner. It appears to me that but for the view which the Revenue Tribunal has taken that he petitioner was offering land which was not recorded in his own name, the Revenue Tribunal would have been inclined to give a fresh choice to the petitioner. At this stage, it may be pointed out that even according to the Guide Lines issued by the State Government, it is clearly indicated that the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal should call upon the landlord to give his choice with regard to the land to be retained and that to be delimited as surplus after the extent of surplus land is determined. In paragraph 9 in Chapter VI of these Guide Lines, which are contained in a booklet styled as Lowering of Agricultural Land Ceiling Guide Lines, the following appears : "When the Tribunal come to a conclusion that the holder or family unit holds land in excess of ceiling area, it should inform the holder or the head of family unit, in the course of proceeding to state the land to be retained by the holder under section 16 and to furnish his choice in Form VII prescribed by Rule 7." Thus, even according to the State, the proper occasion to exercise the choice would be after the extent of the land to be determined as surplus is ascertained. It cannot be denied that would be the proper occasion where a positive choice could properly and definitely be made by the land holder because it will be only after the total holding is determined that he will be finally in a position to know how much land he is entitled to retain and he can then accordingly make his choice. The ground on which the choice has been rejected by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal appears to be entirely unjustified. While determining the total holding of the petitioner, survey Nos. 78, 79 and 31/B-2 standing in the name of the petitioners minor son Nagnath has already been taken into consideration. There is no bar under section 16 which would prohibit the landlord from giving away as surplus land, standing in the name of the minor son. While determining the total holding of the petitioner, survey Nos. 78, 79 and 31/B-2 standing in the name of the petitioners minor son Nagnath has already been taken into consideration. There is no bar under section 16 which would prohibit the landlord from giving away as surplus land, standing in the name of the minor son. In the absence of any such bar under section 16, the landholder could not be prevented from having land standing in the name of one of the members of the family unit delimited as surplus land, when that has been treated as a part of his holding. The view taken by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal appears to be entirely unjustified and without any basis in law. In the result, this petition must be allowed. The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal declining to have surplus land from Survey Nos. 78, 79 and 31/B-2 delimited as surplus land is quashed and it is directed that in place of the surplus land at present delimited, surplus land shall now be delimited as follows :--- Survey No. 78, of village Wakdi : 12 acres 37 gunthas whole Survey No. 79, of village Wakdi : 15 acres 25 gunthas whole Survey No. 31/B-2: 1 acre 36 gunthasout of 10 acres 26 gunthas on the southern side Rule absolute. No order as to costs. -----