JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - The short question for decision arising in this writ petition filed for seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari by the petitioners who are husband and wife for quashing the impugned order dated 31-5-1979 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), is whether the right of choice could be exercised by the petitioners on 6-6-1978. 2. The facts briefly, are that separate notices were issued to the petitioners under S. 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short, the Act, 1960) calling upon them to show cause why the statement of their holdings caused to be prepared by the Prescribed Authority, be not taken as correct. Pursuant to that, the petitioner No. 2 filed objection (Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit) that her holding be not clubbed with the holding of the petitioner No. 1 for determining the surplus land, as the relationship of husband and wife has come to an end and as she has been living separate from the petitioner No. 1. Also in alternative she gave choice in regard to plots Nos. 268-A, 186, and 230-A in case there was any surplus land in the couple's holding. The plea of separation was not accepted by the Prescribed Authority, who passed the order dated 19-11-1974 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) declaring surplus area being 17 Bigha 17 Biswas, which was to be taken trom Khata No. 24, plots Nos. 193, 240 and 245. 3. The petitioners then filed an appeal which was dismissed on 24-2-1975. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed on 9-1-1978 in default according to the petitioners. 4. On 6-6-1978. the petitioners again submitted a choice (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) that the surplus area of 17 Bigha 17 Biswas be taken from plots Nos. 268, 188, and 230. The Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioners' application (Annexure 2 to the Writ petition) by the impugned order dated 31-5-1979 (Annexure 3 to the Writ petition) holding that no choice could be exercised so belatedly and that was the stage of delivering possession of the surplus land by the tenure-holders. 5. 268, 188, and 230. The Prescribed Authority rejected the petitioners' application (Annexure 2 to the Writ petition) by the impugned order dated 31-5-1979 (Annexure 3 to the Writ petition) holding that no choice could be exercised so belatedly and that was the stage of delivering possession of the surplus land by the tenure-holders. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the State respondent No. I stating that warrant of possession in C.L.H. Form 6 was issued against the petitioners on 10-8-1979 and possession of the surplus land was taken on 3-9-1979 pursuant to the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 19-11-1974 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). In para 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is averred that the surplus land was notified under S. 14(1) of the Act, 1960 in the Gazette on 19-4-1975 and then the proceedings under S. 14 were closed and the surplus land was vested in the State. It is, therefore, averred that no right of choice was left to the petitioners after 19th April, 1975, when the notification envisaged by S. 14(1) of the Act, 1960 was published in the Government Gazette. 6. Let us hurriedly have a look at the scheme of the Act, 1960. Under S. 9, the Prescribed Authority soon after the enforcement of the Act, 1960, shall by general notice published in the official gazette call upon every tenure-holder holding land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him on the date of enforcement of this Act, to submit to him within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice a statement in respect of the entire holding. The statement shall also indicate the plots which he would like to retain as part of the ceiling area. Where a tenure-holder fails to submit a statement or submits an incomplete or incorrect statement required to be submitted under S. 9, the Prescribed Authority shall cause to be prepared a statement of the total holdings of the tenure-holder under S. 10(1). The statement shall indicate the plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. Under sub- sec.(2) of S. 10, the Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause to be served on cry such tenure-holder a notice together the a copy of the statement prepared under sub-sec.(i) calling upon him to show cause why the statement be not taken as correct. The statement shall indicate the plots proposed to be declared as surplus land. Under sub- sec.(2) of S. 10, the Prescribed Authority shall thereupon cause to be served on cry such tenure-holder a notice together the a copy of the statement prepared under sub-sec.(i) calling upon him to show cause why the statement be not taken as correct. It is this statement coupled with the notices which were served on the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority shall determine the surplus land of the tenure-holder under sub-sec. (i) of S. 11 if the statement prepared under S. 10(1) is not disputed within the specified time by the tenure-holder. If an objection is filed under sub-sec.(2) of S. 10, then the Prescribed Authority shall after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties, shall decide the objections and determine the surplus land. Section 13 provides a remedy of appeal. Then comes S. 14. Sub-secs. (1) and (2) of Section 14, which are very relevant for the purposes of this case as they stood in the relevant time, are as follows : "(1) The Prescribed Authority shall - (i) in case, where the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 has become final, or (ii) in case, where no appeal has been preferred under Section 13, after the expiry of the period of limitation provided therefor, or (iii) In case, where an appeal has been preferred under Section 13, after its decision, notify in the official Gazette the surplus land determined under Sections 11, 12 or 13, as the case may be. (2) As from the beginning of the date of the notification under sub-section (1) all such surplus land shall stand transferred to and vest, except as hereinafter provided, in the State, free from all encumbrances and all rights, title and interests of all persons in such land shall, with effect from such date, stand extinguished." 7. Sub-section (8) provides that the Collector may at any time after the publication of the notification under sub-sec. (1) to possession of the surplus land. 8. From sub-section(1)of S. 14, it is manifest that the Prescribed Authority shall notify the surplus land, determined under Sections 11, 12, o 13 as the case may be in the official gazette. Sub-section (8) provides that the Collector may at any time after the publication of the notification under sub-sec. (1) to possession of the surplus land. 8. From sub-section(1)of S. 14, it is manifest that the Prescribed Authority shall notify the surplus land, determined under Sections 11, 12, o 13 as the case may be in the official gazette. Sub-sec.(2) of S. 14 makes it clear that from the beginning of the date of the notification under sub-sec.(1), the surplus land shall stand transferred to and vested in the State free from all incumbrances and all rights, title and interests of all persons in such land shall with effect from such date stand extinguished. So when the surplus land is notified in the official gazette after the occurrence of the events, as stated in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of sub-sec.(1) of S. 14, all such land will stand vested in the State and rights of all other persons in such land will be extinguished. As averred in para 11 of the counter-affidavit, the surplus land was notified in the official gazette on 19th April, 1975, after the appeal having been dismissed. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to dispute such averments. The contention of the respondent that the surplus land was notified in official gazette as envisaged by sub-sec.(1) of S. 14, having not been rebutted by means of a rejoinder affidavit, has to be accepted. We, therefore, hold that in view of the notification published on 19th April, 1975, the surplus land declared by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 19-11-1974 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) stood vested in the State right from that date. 9. The question for consideration is whether the petitioners were entitled to exercise the right of choice on6-6-1978, much after publication of the notification, contemplated by sub-sec.(1) of S. 14. In our view, no choice can be exercised by a tenure- holder after the surplus land is vested in the State. Once the land is vested in the State, the right, title and interests of all persons in such land shall stand extinguished from the beginning of the date of notification under sub-sec.(1) of S. 14 and, therefore, the question of giving choice after the date of vesting cannot arise. Once the land is vested in the State, the right, title and interests of all persons in such land shall stand extinguished from the beginning of the date of notification under sub-sec.(1) of S. 14 and, therefore, the question of giving choice after the date of vesting cannot arise. No authority is needed on this point but if .at all one is needed, we can usefully refer to the case of Bharat v. State of U.P., 1977 All LJ 375, which is the decision of a learned single Judge of this court. The question for consideration in that case was whether the choice could be indicated and considered at the appellate stage or even thereafter before the matter is finalised. Considering the Scheme of the Act in detail, the learned single Judge was of the view that until the land was vested and the right, title and interest of all persons in such land was extinguished, the tenure-holder cannot legitimately be denied his right to indicate his choice. The converse position of this authority is that once the land is vested in the State Government, no choice can be exercised by a tenure-holder. We are in complete agreement with this view. Whereas, the petitioners filed revised choice on 6-6-1978 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition), the vesting of surplus land was completed on 19-4-1975, when the notification under sub- section(1) of S. 14 was published in official gazette. The Prescribed Authority, in our view, rightly rejected the petitioners' application (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) giving choice in regard to surplus land on 6-6-1978 much after the date of vesting. 10. It was-argued by Sri G.N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 31st May, 1979 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) was not based on this reasoning. We cannot confine only to the reasoning given by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the petitioners' application giving choice of plots for surplus land but we have to keep in mind the legal position emerging from the statute and the view that we have taken is based on over all position of the statute. 11. It is noteworthy that the learned counsel for the petitioners during his argument had pressed that the petitioners were entitled to a notice in subsequent proceedings contemplated by the provisions of S. 12-A of the Act. 11. It is noteworthy that the learned counsel for the petitioners during his argument had pressed that the petitioners were entitled to a notice in subsequent proceedings contemplated by the provisions of S. 12-A of the Act. It had also been stressed that under the provisions of sub-clause(b) of the aforesaid S. 12-A of the Act, the land of the petitioner No. 2 has been included in surplus land more than permissible under the aforesaid provision. Since the petitioners did not get opportunity to press their claim regarding choice of the land, the impugned judgment should be quashed and the petitioners should be afforded an opportunity to indicate their choice before the Prescribed Authority. 12. In our opinion, the petitioners cannot be afforded a fresh opportunity to indicate their choice in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners before us does not appear to have been pressed before the relevant authority. For the first time this contention has been raised during the course of argument. We are not inclined to entertain a new contention raised at the time of argument. Moreover, the petitioners knew about the ceiling proceedings regarding their land and they did not prefer their objection within time allowed after the publication of the Notification contemplated by the provisions of S. 14(1) of the Act. Only 30 days time has been granted under the provisions of the Act for filing objection regarding surplus land by a tenure-holder or a lessee from the tenure-holder. Since the petitioners have given no cogent reasons for the delay in filing the application dated 6-6-1978 we think that their claim for choice has been rightly negatived. 13. Another ground for rejecting the petitioners' claim of choice indicated on 6-6-1978 is that in plot No. 188 the interests of third persons have crept in and the petitioner No. 1 has pocketed money from them, therefore, we think that the second choice indicated in the application dated 6-6-1978 is not a fair and honest one, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the claim of the petitioners regarding choice of the surplus land indicated on 6-6-1978 has rightly been negatived in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. For the reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In our opinion, the claim of the petitioners regarding choice of the surplus land indicated on 6-6-1978 has rightly been negatived in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. For the reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.