ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - This petition arises out of proceedings taken under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. 2. Notice under S. 10(2), U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was served on the petitioners. They filed objection and contested the proceedings. The prescribed authority declared an area of 2.66 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The order of the prescribed authority was affirmed in appeal. The petitioners thereupon filed a writ petition in this Court which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded again to the Civil Judge. After remand, the learned Civil Judge allowed the petitioners' appeal on the findings that the petitioners had only an area of 1.25 acres of irrigated land as surplus. The appellate authority directed the petitioners to indicate their choice before the prescribed authority. The petitioners thereupon indicated their choice, but the prescribed authority did not accept the same. On appeal by the petitioners the appellate authority affirmed the order of the prescribed authority. Aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court by means of this petition. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioners are recorded tenure holders of land situate in villages Bazpur, Piplijat and Rajpur Batsman. The petitioners gave their choice that chak Nos. 65, 86, 154 of village Bazpur, chak No. 191 of village Piplijat and chak No. 6 of village Rajpur Bahman should be taken as surplus land. There is no dispute that the total area of these chaks is more than 1.25 acres. The prescribed authority rejected the petitioners' choice on the ground that the chaks offered by the petitioners in villages Bazpur and Piplijat consist of small plots which cannot be allotted to persons therefore, he rejected the petitioners' choice and decided to take the entire surplus land situate in village Rajpur Bahman. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal merely on the ground that the petitioners' choice could not be accepted as the land offered by them in villages Bazpur and Piplijat consisted of small plots and there would be difficulty in allotting the same. None of the two authorities have, however, referred to any provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder to sustain the findings that the plots having smaller area cannot be taken as surplus land. 4. None of the two authorities have, however, referred to any provisions of the Act or the rules framed thereunder to sustain the findings that the plots having smaller area cannot be taken as surplus land. 4. Section 12-A of the Act lays down that in determining surplus land the prescribed authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice indicated by the tenure-holder. The expression "as for as possible." confers discretion on the prescribed Authority to accept the choice or not to accept the same, but refusal to accept the choice must be on relevant considerations. The prescribed authority while exercising its power should try to make an attempt to accept the choice the tenure-holder, it cannot refuse accept the choice arbitrarily on irrelevant consideration. Neither the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder lays down that the choice of the tenure-holder shall not be taken into account, if he offers plots having smaller area as surplus land. The proviso to S. 12-A of the Act provides guidance for the Prescribed Authority to accepting the choice indicated by the tenure-holder. Clause (a) to the proviso requires the prescribed authority to have regard to the compactness of the land applicable to the tenure-holder. The provision stipulates that the prescribed authority shall, as far as possible, accept the choice of the tenure-holder having regard to the compactness of the land which may be left for the tenure-holder as ceiling area. There is no provision authorising the prescribed authority to maintain the compactness of the surplus land which may be offered by the tenure. holder. Merely because the land offered by the tenure-holder is in smaller plots, does not authorise the prescribed authority to reject the same and take out the land from the compact area left with the tenure-holder. The reasons given by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority in refusing to accept the choice indicated by the petitioners are wholly irrelevant. 5. In the result I allow the petition and quash the order of the prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority. The prescribed authority is directed to consider the choice indicated by the tenure-holder in accordance with law. The petitioners are entitled toy their costs.