JUDGMENT A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar hand Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') was started giving rise to. Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74. This case was started against Petitioner no. 1 Bishwanath Choudhary. Another Land Ceiling Case being Case No. 203/1973-74 was started against Kesho Pd. Chaudhary (Petitioner no. 4). Objection under)" section 10(3) of the Act, was filed by petitioner no. 1. On that very day objections were also filed by petitioners 3 and 4. Subsequently objections were filed by petitioners 2 and 5. All these objections are said to be en affidavit. Various objections were taken which need net be stated here. Since one of the objections was that the lands had been transferred to ether persons notice under section 5 (a) (iii) of the Act, was issued to same of these persons who are respondents 4 to 32 in CWJC. No. 4696/78. At the time of hearing it is stated that Additional Collector had given the petitioners to understand that they would have option to select lands of their choice. The objections were disposed of under Annexure-I. Aggrieved by that order respondents 4 to 32 preferred appeal being Land Ceiling Appeal No. 74 of 1976. Petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 also preferred appeal being Land Ceiling Appeal No. 151/76. These appeal have been disposed of under Anexures-3 and 3/1. Annexure 3 (in CWJC 4696/78) being in relation to Land Ceiling Appeal No. 151/76 and Annexure- 3/1 being in relation to other appeal. In disposing of the appeal the learned Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order of the Additional Collector was correct. He observed: “All the various transfers and decrees have been rightly rejected as they have been made after be appointed date." He, therefore, refused to interfere with the order of the Additional Collector. In relation to the claim of option the learned Commissioner stated as follows:- "As regards the question of option being given there is no doubt that the appellants will have the opportunity to opt their lands but as pointed out on behalf of the State during arguments, even according to the ruling of the Honourable High Court such option can only be in the lands transferred." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised several points but it is only necessary to mention one of them. It was contended that the learned Commissioner erred in law in confining the option of the petitioners to the lands which had been transferred by them. Learned counsel pointed out that the decision of the High Court in Hiralal Sah Vs. State of Bihar has not been correctly appreciated, The aforesaid decision is only applicable where the transfers have been held to be bonafide. In the instant case neither of the land authorities have come to the conclusion that the case of the transferees that they were bonafide transferees in possession of the lands in question has been accepted. The contention appears to have substance. The law has been explained in the aforesaid decision. If the authorities find that the transfers are benami transfers or for the purpose of defeating the provisions of ceiling or otherwise fit to be annulled there is no question of land holder being directed to retain those lands while exercising his option. It was observed in that case that no opinion was being expressed In relation to cases where the option had been exercised strictly in conformity with the provisions of section 9 of the Act. It was in relation to the other cases that it was explained that since the option was being permitted to be exercised at the discretion of the authorities it was open to the authorities to put some restriction on the exercise of the power of option. As to whether any restriction should be put or not, and as to what should be the nature of restriction, if any, would vary from case to case. No uniform rule can be laid down. 3. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it is a fit case in which there should be a remand to the learned Commissioner so that he may re-hear the appeal of the parties and dispose of the same in accordance with law. We accordingly quash Annexures-3 and 3/1 and direct the decision of the appeal in the light of observations made in this Judgment. CWJC.654/79. 4. For the reasons stated in CWJC. No. 4696/78 this application has also to be allowed only in so far as Annexure 4 and 4/1 are concerned. There would be re-determination of appeal of the petitioners also in accordance with law. CWJC.654/79. 4. For the reasons stated in CWJC. No. 4696/78 this application has also to be allowed only in so far as Annexure 4 and 4/1 are concerned. There would be re-determination of appeal of the petitioners also in accordance with law. Application allowed.