JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J.- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred against the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Hamirpur dated 24th August, 1981 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. 2. In pursuance of the notice issued under Section 10(2) U.P Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the petitioner filed objection dated 10-2-1976 before the Prescribed Authority. On 15-6-1976, the Prescribed Authority declared 22.51 acres land of the petitioner to be surplus. The petitioner filed Ceiling Appeal No. 5231 of 1976 before the District Judge, Hamirpur. The appeal was partly allowed and the surplus area was reduced to 11.28 acres on 4-12-1976. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 1025 of 1976 against the aforesaid judgment of the District Judge in the High Court which was allowed and reminded to the appellate authority who ultimately determined 7.82 acres of land as surplus. This judgment became final. Thereafter, the petitioner offered choice of the land which could be taken possession of. The Prescribed Authority on 18-4-1981 refused to accept the choice as it was in respect of a plot which had already been sold by the petitioner on 14-3-1972 in favour of Kallu and others. The Prescribed Authority held that the choice given by the petitioner was liable to be rejected on the aforesaid ground and also on the ground that the land already declared surplus by the order dated 11-3-80 of village Bidokhar-purai of chak no. 81 had been taken possession of. Against this judgment, the petitioner went up in appeal which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 24-8-81. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ. 3. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that 7.82 acres of land has been declared surplus by an order which became final. The controversy relating to reducing this area on account of consolidation operations cannot be permitted to be taken at this stage before the High Court. In none of the judgments including the one which was given by the High Court in the earlier judgment the petitioner even claimed that the area held by him had been reduced. He permitted the order declaring 7.82 acres to become final. This judgment is binding on him. The only question left was about choice. 4. In none of the judgments including the one which was given by the High Court in the earlier judgment the petitioner even claimed that the area held by him had been reduced. He permitted the order declaring 7.82 acres to become final. This judgment is binding on him. The only question left was about choice. 4. While exercising his right of choice, the petitioner wanted the land already sold by him to be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority, in my opinion, rightly did not accept it. The Additional District Judge as well, in the appeal, found that the choice of declaring the area already sold as not genuine. I am unable to find that the finding of not accepting the choice of the plot already sold by him, was erroneous or illegal. 5. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.