ORDER V.K. Mehrotra, J. - Petitioner, Hukum Singh, challenges in the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the order dated 30th July, 1975 passed by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Aligarh, in revenue Appeal No. 91 of 1975 under Section 13 of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this order, the Addl Civil Judge had dismissed an appeal filed by the tenure-holder, Bhagwati Prasad, against an order of the Prescribed Authority dated Dec. 17, 1974. The petitioner claims to be a transferee of six bighas and three biswancies of land from the tenure-holder. The Prescribed Authority held that the transfer was void and had to be ignored. This finding was affirmed by the Addl. Civil Judge, in appeal. The petitioner made an application before the Addl. Civil Judge that he was a bona fide transferee for consideration, and as such the plots sold to him may not be declared as surplus. Instead, some other land of the tenure-holder may be declared as surplus land. The Addl. Civil Judge took the view that the present petitioner did not file any appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority, so that the request for impleadment in the tenure-holders appeal and grant of relief to him therein could not be accepted. He also held that the remedy available to the petitioner was to claim compensation from the tenure-holder. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that having regard to the purpose with which Section 12-A and in particular Cls. (c) and (d) of the proviso to the said section, were enacted, a bona fide transferee for consideration could seek protection of his right even at the appellate stage, and that Clause (d) should bear such an interpretation. He has cited the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Nakchhed Singh v. State of U. P., 1978 All WC 511 : (1978 All LJ 776) in support of his submission. 3. Under Section 12-A of the Act it has been specifically provided that the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice of plots indicated by a tenure-holder which he or other members of his family would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him or them under the Act. 3. Under Section 12-A of the Act it has been specifically provided that the Prescribed Authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice of plots indicated by a tenure-holder which he or other members of his family would like to retain as part of the ceiling area applicable to him or them under the Act. The proviso to Section 12-A indicates the guidelines which have to be followed by the Prescribed Authority in dealing with the choice made by the tenure-holder. Section 12-A in so far as it is material, runs as follows: "12-A. 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 tenure-holder of 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 : Provided that: xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) Where any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area including any land mortgaged to the State Government or to a bank (as defined in Cl. (c) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973) or to a Co-operative and Development Bank or other op-operative society or to the corporation or to a Government company, the surplus land to be determined shall as far as possible be land other than that so mortgaged. (d) 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-s. (6) or sub-sec. (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, and...." 4. A perusal of Cl. A perusal of Cl. (d) would show that while considering the choice made by the tenure-holder the Prescribed Authority would, as far as possible try to exclude such land from the area declared as surplus which is subject-matter of a transfer. Primarily, the choice of land to be declared as surplus or otherwise is to be made by the tenure-holder himself. Keeping in mind the likely hardship to a transferee, the legislature appears to have provided that in case any part of the land transferred to him comes to be declared as surplus land of a tenure-holder, the transferee would be able to claim refund of a proportionate amount of the consideration advanced to the transferor. Such amount has also been charged on the amount payable to the transferor under Section 17 of the Act as also on any land retained by the transferor within the ceiling area, which shall be liable to be sold in satisfaction of the charge notwithstanding anything contained in Section 153 of the U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 5. It is clear that sometimes the choice made by the tenure-holder may result in great hardship to the transferee inasmuch as the land purchased by him may come to be included in the surplus area by reason of ignorance on the part of Prescribed Authority about availability of other land of the tenure-holder for the purpose. The provisions of Section 12-A which confer the right of making a choice only upon the tenure-holder must receive a construction which permits a transferee to seek the exclusion of the plots purchased by him from the surplus land of the tenure-holder from whom he purchased them by pointing out to the authorities under the Act that plots other than those purchased by him are available for inclusion in the surplus area of the tenure-holder. Such a construction will further the object of Cl. (d) of the proviso to Section 12-A of the Act. In these circumstances, it is to be held that the view taken by the 1st Additional Civil Judge suffers from manifest error. 6. In the case of Nakechhed Singh v. State of U. P. (1978 All LJ 776) (supra) this court upheld the right of the tenure-holder to indicate the choice retaining certain land in his ceiling area including one which may be subject-matter of a transfer treated to be void under the Act. 6. In the case of Nakechhed Singh v. State of U. P. (1978 All LJ 776) (supra) this court upheld the right of the tenure-holder to indicate the choice retaining certain land in his ceiling area including one which may be subject-matter of a transfer treated to be void under the Act. When any application in that regard is made by a tenure-holder, the appellate authority has to take that into consideration and there is an element of discretion in the matter with the appellate authority as well under Cl. (d) of Section 12-A. In the last paragraph of the judgment, the learned Judge observed that the appellate authority would determine the surplus area after consideration of the application filed by the petitioner in the case in regard to his choice of the land which should be declared as surplus and that it should also take into consideration any application put in by the transferee in which it may be stated that the transferee had no objection to any land transferred to him being declared as surplus. Obviously, this court did recognise existence of a right in the transferee to be heard by the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority under the Act in' the matter of exclusion or otherwise of the plots transferred to him from the surplus area of the tenure-holder. This decision in my opinion does assist the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited before me the decision of a Division Bench in the case of Dilbagh Singh v. State of U. P., 1978 All WC 393: (1978 All LJ 717) and has placed particular reliance upon paras. 26 and 28 thereof. In that case, the petitioner claimed to be the tenure-holder of certain plots on the basis of having acquired sirdari rights under Sec. 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act due to his adverse possession. These plots were recorded in the Khatauni in the name of one Ram Chandra as Sirdar. Notice under Sec. 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to Ram Chandra who filed his objection. The Prescribed Authority included the plots in question in the surplus area of Ram Chandra and the determination about the surplus area was published in the U. P. Gazette. Notice under Sec. 10 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to Ram Chandra who filed his objection. The Prescribed Authority included the plots in question in the surplus area of Ram Chandra and the determination about the surplus area was published in the U. P. Gazette. The petitioner, subsequently, learnt about the aforesaid and filed an objection under Section 14 (3) of the Act with the prayer that the declaration of the plots in dispute as surplus area of Ram Chandra be set aside. The objection of the petitioner was dismissed. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner in that case, this Court held that in view of sub-secs. (2) and (3) of Section 11 of the Act, objection by a person who claimed to be the tenure-holder though not recorded in the revenue records nor served with the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Act has also to be considered and the possession of the said tenure-holder cannot be disturbed for so long his objection is not decided. This proposition, in my opinion does clearly help the petitioner. On the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the learned District Judge in appeal in the case as the transfer of the land to him had to be ignored having been made after the prescribed date, the petitioner would still fall_in the same category as a tenure-holder, whose objection is to be entertained and decided within the dictum of the Division Bench decision Another decision to which my attention was invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner was in the case of K. G. Begde v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1976 Bom 78 ). In this case, the petitioner before the High Court was the landlord who had made a number of sale transactions in favour of various respondents to the writ petition. These transfers were found by the authorities under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 27 of 1961 to be for the purposes of avoiding or defeating the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The Maharashtra Act enables in Sec. 16 a person holding land in excess of the permissible area to select land he wishes to retain with himself up to the ceiling limit. The Maharashtra Act enables in Sec. 16 a person holding land in excess of the permissible area to select land he wishes to retain with himself up to the ceiling limit. The petitioner had sought the exclusion of the lands transferred by him from the ceiling area and their inclusion in the land declared as surplus area. The learned single Judge who decided the case declined to interfere with decisions made by the Tribunal under the Act refusing to accede to the prayer made by the landlord petitioner for including the land transferred by him in his surplus area. This decision, however, does not assist the petitioner in his submission that the transferees of land subject to transfers which are void under the Act could, as of right canvass for the exclusion of the land purchased by them from the surplus area of the tenure-holder from whom they had purchased it. 8. In view of the above discussion it is apparent that the appellate authority erred in not giving the petitioner an opportunity of presenting his case regarding the inclusion by the Prescribed Authority of the plots transferred to him in the surplus land of the tenure-holder Bhagwati Prasad. That part of the judgment of the appellate authority (Annexure III to the petition) cannot be sustained and is quashed. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for rehearing only in so far as it relates to the inclusion or otherwise of the plots transferred to the petitioner in the surplus land of Bhagwati Prasad, after notice to the petitioner. The petitioner thus succeeds in part. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs.