ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The Facts, in brief, are these; The petitioner is the tenure-holder. He was issued the notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority and certain land was declared as surplus. An appeal was filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority and the same stood abated on 18-12-1976 as in the meanwhile a fresh notice under S. 10 (2) of the Act had been issued in view of the amendments in the Ceiling Act. It is the allegation of the petitioner that he had indicated his choice before the appellate court but the said court while ordering the abatement of the appeal directed that the petitioner should express his choice in the fresh proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. It seems that as a matter of fact the subsequent ceiling proceedings had been decided by the Prescribed Authority on 20-5-1976, i.e. before the appellate court abated the appeal on 18-10-1976. Subsequently, an application dated 18-12-1976 was given by the petitioner purporting to do so under Section 13-A of the Ceiling Act. His allegation was that he really wanted to give some other land in choice but due to some fraud which was played on him by his two sons, in his objection he was shown to have given in choice the plot No. 250. He accordingly prayed that his plot No. 250 which he had transferred to his two other sons should not be taken as surplus but some other land which he detailed in his said application should be taken as surplus. The Prescribed Authority rejected the said application by his order dated 7-2-1977. a true copy whereof is annexure 1 to the petition. Thereafter against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal but the appeal was held to be not maintainable on the ground that no appeal lay against the said order and further on merits also it was held that the appeal under Section 13-A was not tenable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on 22-4-1977 by an order a true copy whereof is anenxure 3 to the petition. 2. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri B.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petition. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on 22-4-1977 by an order a true copy whereof is anenxure 3 to the petition. 2. Now the petitioner has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri B.D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petition. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 3. It seems to me that the petitioner was undoubtedly wrong in styling his application dated 18-12-76 as one under Section 13-A. However, that does not conclude the matter. In view of the decision of this Court in Bharat Singh v. State of U.P. (1977 All WC 407) : (1977 All LJ 375) and which was subsequently approved by the Division Bench in Meharban Singh v. S.D.M. (1978 All LR (SOC) 92). It has now become settled that the tenure-holder can express his choice at any time till his rights are lost under S. 14 of the Ceiling Act. Therefore, the said application dated 18-12-1976 would be treated to be an application by the tenure-holder expressing his fresh choice in respect of the land which he desired to give as surplus. Such fresh choice could be accepted under S. 12-A despite the fact that at an earlier stage some other choice had been given by the petitioner. However, the fresh choice could be accepted only if the tenure-holder's rights in the land in dispute, i.e. plot No. 250 had not extinguished under Section 14 of the Act. The Prescribed Authority in his order has emphasised that a notification under Section 14 (1) had been issued in August, 1976. However, the Prescribed Authority's attention was not drawn to the fact that in the meantime by the U.P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1976 Section 14 stood amended with effect from August 6, 1976. The Prescribed Authority in his impugned order has also mentioned that possession was taken "in accordance with the said notification on 15-9-76. Hence this land has vested in the State." The petitioner has controverted this fact in the petition and subsequently in the rejoinder affidavit and it is clearly asserted that his sons, in whose favour this land had been transferred by him, were in cultivator possession. It seems that in the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order is based on misconceptions and misdirections in law. 4. It seems that in the aforesaid circumstances the impugned order is based on misconceptions and misdirections in law. 4. Accordingly, I hereby allow this petition and quash the appellate court's judgment (annexure-3) and the order of the Prescribed Authority (annexure-1). The case is sent back to the Prescribed Authority with a direction that the petitioner's application dated 18-12-1976 shall be reconsidered as an application not under Section 13-A but one indicating his choice under Sec. 12-A. The application shall be decided in the light of the aforementioned cases of this court and taking into consideration the effect of the aforesaid Ordinance whereby Sec. 14 had been amended with effect from August 6, 1976. 5. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.