ORDER V.K. Mehrotra, J. - The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the choice exercised by him, after having done so once, by altering some of the plots was not considered by the Prescribed Authority on its view that it was not open to the petitioner to do so. Further, the appeal against such an order was wrongly rejected as being not maintainable. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel in regard to the aforesaid grievance it appears to me desirable in the interest of justice to quash the orders passed both by the Prescribed Authority and by the appellate authority to the extent that they take the view that it was not open to the petitioner to suggest a change in the plots with which he did not wish to part and that an appeal against such an order was not maintainable. 3. This court has been of the view that it was open to the person concerned to suggest change in the plots with which he did not wish to part till his dispossession (See Tek Chandra v. State of U.P. Writ Petn. No. 4663 of 1979 decided by Hon'ble R.R. Rastogi, J on 13-11-1980, reported in 1981 All LJ NOC 37. Bhuneshwari Singh v. State, 1979 All LJ 274 and Bharat v. State of U.P., 1977 All LJ 375. 4. In view of the fact that the learned Standing Counsel has not been able to satisfy me about the view taken by the Prescribed Authority about the right of the petitioner a exercise option, I do not consider it necessary to express a concluded opinion upon the question whether an order passed under S. 12-A could be assailed in an appeal. 5. The case is being finally disposed of today as prayed Jointly by the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that, admittedly, the petitioner has not so far been dispossessed from any part of his land, in consequence of the proceedings taken against him under the Act. I direct the Prescribed Authority to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in his application bearing paper No. 103 AA on its merits. The orders dated Feb. 8. 1984 and March 28. 1983 shall stand quashed. 6. Parties are left to hear their own costs.