JUDGMENT 1. THIS writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The petitioner was a tenure-holder of certain agricultural lands. A notice was issued to him under Section 10 (1) of the Act. The petitioner preferred objections. In one of the objections the petitioner pleaded that he had sold certain portions of his land to his daughter's daughter. The sale deed was admittedly executed after 24-1-1971. The petitioner claimed that the lands covered by the sale deed should be excluded from his land-holdings while determining the ceiling area applicable to him. 2. THE Prescribed Authority accepted the objection of the petitioner in regard to the sale of the land in favour of his daughter's daughter, namely Km. Jyotana. THE State of Uttar Pradesh preferred an appeal. THE appeal was allowed. THE Appellate Authority held that the sale deed having been executed after 24-1-1971 had to be ignored as it was executed neither in good faith and had been executed in order to evade the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The finding of the Appellate Authority is a finding of fact which is binding on this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to show me in what manner the judgment of the Appellate Authority suffers from any manifest error of law. The judgment is based on an appreciation of evidence and also relevant cretion having been applied in deciding against the petitioner. 3. BEFORE the Appellate Authority the petitioner put in an application praying that the lands covered by the sale deeds should be taken as surplus and not other lands in the tenure of the petitioner. This application was rejected by the Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal against the petitioner. This part of the matter was dealt with by the Appellate Authority in the following words : "The appellant tenure-holder has moved an application that in case the appeal of the State is allowed then the surplus land may be declared from village Barahi, Jogi Kund and Ekdangwa. In my opinion, this application cannot be allowed as the land which is the subject matter of any transfer has not to be declared as surplus land in view of Section 12-A (d) of the Act. In my opinion, this application cannot be allowed as the land which is the subject matter of any transfer has not to be declared as surplus land in view of Section 12-A (d) of the Act. The said application is rejected." 4. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority shows that it considered that in view of the provisions of Section 12-A (d) of the Act, he had no discretion in the matter of determining the surplus land where lands have been transferred by a tenure-holder. Section 12-A of the Act lays down that in determining the surplus land under Sections 11 or 12 the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice indicated by the tenure-holder to the plot or plots which he and other members of his family, if any would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to the tenure-holder, whether indicated in his statement under Sec. 9 or in subsequent proceedings. The opening part of the section, therefore, leaves the initial choice with the tenure-holder. Thereafter follows the proviso, clause (d) whereof provides : "Where any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area including land which is the subject of any transfer or partition referred to in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7) of Section 5, the surplus land determined shall, as far as possible, be land other than land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, and if the surplus land includes any land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, the transfer or partition shall in so far as it relates to the land included in the surplus land, be deemed to be and always to have been void." The words 'as far as possible' are to be found in Section 12-A. Therefore, there is an area of discretion left with the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, also with the Appellate Authority to determine such lands as have been the subject matter of transfer as surplus land. Of course, the normal rule is that such land shall not be declared as surplus. Section 12-A (d) was enacted in order to protect the interest of transferees from tenure-holders who had purchased surplus land. In this case the petitioner had transferred land to his daughter's daughter. Of course, the normal rule is that such land shall not be declared as surplus. Section 12-A (d) was enacted in order to protect the interest of transferees from tenure-holders who had purchased surplus land. In this case the petitioner had transferred land to his daughter's daughter. It has been found by the Appellate Authority that the transaction was entered into solely to defect the provisions of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. It was perfectly open to the Appellate Authority to have considered the choice offered by the petitioner in regard to the land which was to be determined as surplus. The Appellate Authority, therefore, committed a manifest error of law in holding that he had no area of discretion in this regard in view of the provisions of Section 12-A (d) of the Act. 5. IN the result writ petition succeeds in part. The operative order of the Appellate Authority, insofar as it has rejected the choice of the petitioner in regard to the area declared as surplus is quashed. The matter will go back to the Appellate Authority to determine the surplus land after taking into consideration the application filed by the petitioner in the appeal in regard to his choice of the land which should be declared surplus. The Appellate Authority will take into account any other application put in by the transferee in which it may be stated whether the transferee has any objection to the land transferred to her being declared as surplus land. IN the special circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.