ORDER M.P. Mehrotra J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are simple. The petitioner is the tenure-holder and he was proceeded against under the Ceiling law. It seems that he gave his choice regarding the surplus land at an earlier occasion on 20-6-1979. Subsequently, on 30-10-1979 the Petitioner moved another application praying that he wanted to revise his choice. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and thereafter an appeal was filed and the same was dismissed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 7-4-1980, a certified copy whereof is on the record. Now the tenure-holder has come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Sri R.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition the learned Standing Counsel made his submissions. 3. It seems to me that in view of the law declared by this Court in Bharat Singh v. State of U.P., (1977 All WC 407) and the Division Bench Pronouncement in Meharban Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, (1978 All LR (SOC) 92), the view of the appellate court and the Prescribed Authority is not correct. Obviously, in Section 12-A there is nothing to suggest that it is not open to the tenure-holder to revise his choice. It seems to me that unless there be some such difficulty as makes it not passible for the Prescribed Authority to accept the revised choice, the petitioner should have a right to revise his earlier choice by giving a fresh choice subsequently till such time his rights as a tenure-holder subsist in the land in dispute. Of course, if due to the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act his rights have become extinguished then obviously he cannot be allowed to give a fresh choice. Of course, if due to the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act his rights have become extinguished then obviously he cannot be allowed to give a fresh choice. Even if the proceedings under Section 14 have not taken place and yet there are cogent reasons for the Prescribed Authority for not accepting the revised choice, then under Section 12-A the Prescribed Authority can reject the revised choice on the ground that it is not possible to accept the same in terms of Section 12-A. However, the mere fact that a second choice has been given in revision of the first choice and the view that the law does not permit it to be done, is not a good ground for rejective subsequent choice. 4. Accordingly. I allow this petition quash the judgment of the appellate court dated 7-4-1980 (Annexure 1 and the order of Prescribed Authority dated 12-1-1979 (Annexure 3) d direct that the Prescribed Authorized shall decide the petitioner's application dated 30-10-1979 on merits under section 12-A and without holding that the same was legally not maintainable. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.