JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. This Writ petition is directed against the judgment of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor, dated 17.2.77 in Revenue Appeal No. 127 of 1976, Mohammad Ibrahim versus State of U. P. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the appellate authority has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the choice indicated by the petitioner. The appellate authority has answered the question raised on behalf of the petitioner in the follwing words: "I have heard both the parties and have also gone through Sections 9 and 12A of the Act. Discretion has been given to the Prescribed Authority and he has rightly ignored the choice. The plots for which there was offer, were under litigation and the tenureholder was not in possession. In these circumstances, the choice was rightly not considered." The Prescribed Authority has dealt with the grievance of the petitioner in the following words: "It is clear that the land of the tenureholder's wife, situated in Tahsil Nagma, is under dispute and it may be difficult for the State to take possession of this land if declared surplus. This is likely to result in loss of the entire purpose of Ceiling Act. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept the indicated choice of the tenureholder." Section 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act records thus: "The Collector shall at any time after (a) ...... (b) ...... This is likely to result in loss of the entire purpose of Ceiling Act. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept the indicated choice of the tenureholder." Section 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act records thus: "The Collector shall at any time after (a) ...... (b) ...... (c) ......takes possession of the surplus land determined under Section 11, Section 12 or Section 13 and also of any ungathered crop of fruits of trees, not being crops or fruits to which subsection (1) of Section 15 applies, after evicting any person found in occupation of such land, crops or fruits and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary." Section 12A of the aforesaid Ceiling Act reads thus: "In determining the surplus land under Section 11 or Section 12, the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice indicated by the tenureholder 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 him or them under the provisions of this Act, whether indicated by him in his statement under Section 9 or in any subsequent proceedings." Since both the authorities have refused to accept the choice indicated by the tenureholder on a ground which is no ground in the eye of law if the plots which are given up by the tenureholder as surplus plots are under litigation, the Collector under Section 14 has been given ample power to evict the trespasser. If the socalled trespasser has go: a right in the plots indicated by a tenureholder as surplus land, the surplus land cannot be treated as the land of the tenureholder. In this view of the matter I think that the ceiling authorities have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them in refusing to accept the choice indicated by the present petitioner. It is desirable that the appellate authority being the last court of fact should reexamine the claim of the petitioner with regard to the choice in the light of the provisions of Sections 12 and 14 of the aforesaid Act. For the reasons given above the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. For the reasons given above the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed and the appellate authority is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.