JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the validity and legality of the judgment of the Civil Judge, Jalaun, dated 7-8-1982, dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners 1 and 2. 2. It seems that prescribed Authority declared 2.76 acres in terms of the irrigated land as surplus as against petitioner no. 1, Ghasi Ram. Against this order, petitioner no. 1 Ghasi Ram filed appeal no. 450 of 1970 and the other by Pramod Kumar petitioner no. 2, being appeal no. 449 of 1970. Both of these appeals were dismissed. Against the dismissal of their appeals, the petitioners filed writ petition no. 1741 of 1977 in the High Court. The writ petition was partly allowed and the area of petitioner no. 1 which had been reduced on account of consolidation proceedings was permitted to be taken out of the ceiling area of petitioner no. 1. 3. After the judgment of the High Court, dated 2-5-1979, the prescribed Authority held that petitioner no. 1 had 1.68 acres in terms of irrigated land as surplus. The said petitioner no. 1 gave his choice of surplus land situated in village Kanasi. The prescribed Authority rejected the choice and directed that surplus land would be taken from the plot of Khasra no. 99 of petitioner no. 1 situated in village Adleeshpura measuring 4.20 acres in terms of unirrigated land. Against that judgment, the petitioner no. 1 went up in appeal to the District Judge on two grounds. The first was that the appeal against the order of the prescribed Authority was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Act and the second that the choice offered by petitioner no. 1 was hit by Section 12A (D) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this Court. 5. So far as the question of maintainability of the appeal is concerned, the view taken by the Civil Judge appears to be correct. Section 13 does not provide for any appeal against rejection of choice given by the tenure holder under Section 12-A as held by this court in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 1981 ALR 106 (summary of cases). Section 13 does not provide for any appeal against rejection of choice given by the tenure holder under Section 12-A as held by this court in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., 1981 ALR 106 (summary of cases). However, since the petitioners have also challenged the validity of the order of the prescribed Authority refusing to accept the choice given by the petitioners, the present writ petition could not be liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 6. So far as the question of choice is concerned, the petitioner no. 1 had been found to be the tenure holder of the land regarding which proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act by issuing a show cause notice under Section 10 (2) had been initiated. In that proceedings, petitioner no. 1 had pleaded that petitioner no. 2. who was his minor son, has since been adopted by Panna Lal, the land standing in the name of Pramod Kumar bad to be treated as that of his. This plea was not accepted by the ceiling authorities and also by the High Court in Writ petition no. 1741 of 1977. Act a result of the rejection of the aforesaid plea, the necessary consequence was that the entire land was that of petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. I gave choice in respect of chak no. 54 situated in village Kanasi. There was no difficulty in accepting this choice. The ceiling authorities by the impugned judgments have expressed that since the land of chak no. 54 had been shown in the name of Pramod Kumar, petitioner no. 2 hence, acceptance of choice will amount to infringement of Section 5 (6) and Section 12 (b) of the aforesaid Act. The view appears to be patently erroneous. When the ceiling authorities had found that chak no. 54 belonged to petitioner no. 1 Ghasi Ram and petitioner no. 2 had nothing, to do with it, there is no question of infringement of Section 5 (6) and Section 12-A (d). The present was not a case where tenure holder transferred any land to the third person in between 24th January, 1951 to 8th June, 1973. That being so, neither Section 5 (6) nor 12-A (d) applied. In this view of the matter, there being no other difficulty, the Prescribed Authority committed an error in not accepting the choice of the petitioner no. That being so, neither Section 5 (6) nor 12-A (d) applied. In this view of the matter, there being no other difficulty, the Prescribed Authority committed an error in not accepting the choice of the petitioner no. 1 and taking possession of surplus land from chak no. 54 : 7. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the authorities below are set aside to the extent indicated above. The Prescribed Authority is directed to accept the choice of petitioner no. 1 and to take surplus old land from chak no. 54 of the village Kanasi. There shall be no order as to costs.