ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - In this writ petition a short question under consideration is whether the ceiling authorities are justified in not accepting the choice indicated by the petitioner-tenure holder. The prescribed authority rejected the choice given by the petitioner as is evidence fro the order contained in Annexure II attached with the writ petition. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the judgments of the ceiling authorities the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that under the provisions of Section 12-A (d) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, the ceiling authorities were bound to accept the choice indicated by the tenure holder except the land subject of transfer or petition mentioned in the aforesaid provision. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the land recorded in the name of the petitioner and other co-tenure holders was wrongly excluded from the surplus area. It has been emphasised that the ceiling authorities were under an obligation to accept the choice indicated by the petitioner tenure holder. 3. The learned counsel for the State has tried to refute the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that possession had been taken over the land declared surplus long long ago. Therefore, the choice indicated by the tenure-holder was rightly not accepted by the ceiling authorities. In this connection the learned counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the provisions of Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act. It has also been submitted that the appellate authority was fully justified in not entertaining the appeal, therefore, it is not a fit case where any interference should be made with the impugned judgments of the ceiling authorities. 4. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that even if the appeal filed by the tenure holder was not maintainable, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the prescribed authority whereby the petitioner's choice has not been accepted, therefore, the impugned judgment of the prescribed authority deserves to be quashed. The delay in approaching this Court is due to the circumstances that the petitioner was prosecuting remedy of appeal etc. The delay in approaching this Court is due to the circumstances that the petitioner was prosecuting remedy of appeal etc. as advised, therefore, there exists sufficient explanation for the delay and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the judgment of the prescribed authority contained in Annexure-II attached with the writ petition should be quashed. 5. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. During the course of arguments I was not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ceiling authorities were not justified in excluding the joint land from surplus area on the ground that such land was not contemplated by the provisions of sub-sec (d) of Section 12-A of the U.P. Imposition of ceiling on Land Holding Act. Section 12-A, Proviso (a) reads as follows:- "The prescribed authority shall have regard to the compactness of the land to be included in the ceiling area applicable to the tenure-holder". 6. It appears that the prescribed authority has not taken into account the aforesaid provision while rejecting the choice indicated by the petitioner tenure-holder. If the tenure holder has share in the plots standing in the name of several persons and wants to exclude them from the ceiling area to which he is entitled, I think that it was incumbent upon the ceiling authorities to have examined the claim of the petitioner in view of the aforesaid provision mentioned in Section 12-A, Proviso (a) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act. In a case reported at page 37 of 1981 R.D. (Summary Cases) Items No. 50 (1982 All LJ 134), A learned single Judge of this Court has indicated that the mere fact that the petitioner gives any choice of part of plot does not mean that his choice ust necessarily be rejected. He has emphasised that Cl. (a) of the Proviso to Section 12-A of the Act lays down that the prescribed authority shall have regard to the compactness of the land to be included to the area applicable to the tenure holder. The aforesaid provision is for the benefit of the tenure holder and it cannot be used against the petitioner looking from this angle, I find that the prescribed authority has committed and error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the choice indicated by the petitioner tenure holder. 7. The aforesaid provision is for the benefit of the tenure holder and it cannot be used against the petitioner looking from this angle, I find that the prescribed authority has committed and error apparent on the face of the record in not accepting the choice indicated by the petitioner tenure holder. 7. True that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not maintainable but the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and has explained the delay if challenging the judgment of the prescribed authority in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, in my opinion, the delay in challenging the order of the prescribed authority cannot stand as a bar to the entertainment of the writ petition against the order of the prescribed authority. 8. A regards the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that possession over the land declared surplus has been taken long long ago, therefore, the choice indicated by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the prescribed authority, I think that the prescribed authority has not rejected the prayer on that ground. There is a controversy whether the petitioner tenure holder has been deprived of his land actually on the spot therefore, it would not be proper to reject the writ petition on the ground that the land had vested in the State and possession had been taken long long ago. This aspect of the matter would be examined by the prescribed authority when the matter is taken up again hereafter. 9. The learned counsel for the State has referred to the provisions of Section 14 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding act and has emphasised that from the date when possession was taken, the right of the tenure holder could be ignored by the ceiling authorities. Since the prescribed authority has not refused the prayer on that ground, I think it proper to permit this question to be raised before the prescribed authority hereafter which shall decide the question. Strictly in accordance with law. 10. The bare perusal of the order dated 29-3-1985. Contained in Annexure-III attached with the writ petition, indicates that the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that possession over the learned declared surplus had been taken long long -ago is not quite correct, therefore, this question need be examined by the prescribed authority hereafter. 11. Strictly in accordance with law. 10. The bare perusal of the order dated 29-3-1985. Contained in Annexure-III attached with the writ petition, indicates that the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that possession over the learned declared surplus had been taken long long -ago is not quite correct, therefore, this question need be examined by the prescribed authority hereafter. 11. It would not be out of place to mention here that according to para 18 of the counter affidavit, the possession has been taken over by the State on 20.2.1986. The petitioner had indicated choice much prior to the date when the alleged possession has taken place. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the ceiling authorities to consider the choice indicated by the petitioner-tenure holder strictly in accordance with law. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the prescribed authority contained in Annexure II attached with the writ petition, dated 13.8.1985 is hereby quashed. When the aforesaid judgment is quashed, the judgment of the appellate Court, contained in Annexure-I attached with the writ petition, loses all importance and efficacy. The prescribed authority, opposite party No. 2, is directed to redetermine the question of choice indicated by the petitioner-tenure holder in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.