ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - In this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 16-4-1988 contained in Annexure 11 attached with the writ petition. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners before me is that the impugned order dated 16-488 has been passed against the petitioners without affording any reasonable opportunity to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On 31-3-1986, 28 bighas 7 biswas 10 biswansis unirriated land belonging to the petitioners was declared surplus. Fifteen days time was granted to the petitioners to indicate their choice. Against the order dated 31-3-1986 the petitioners had preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court on 28-3-1988. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority has passed the impugned order dated 16-4-1988. 4. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that without giving any notice to the petitioners, the Prescribed Authority has passed the impugned order dated 16-4-1988 and, therefore, the same should be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has submitted in reply that the petitioners had an alternative remedy to pray to the prescribed authority for recalling the order dated 16-4-1988. It has also been stressed that under law there is no requirement on the part of the authorities to give fresh notice to the petitioners to indicate their choice. Therefore the impugned judgment is quite in consonance with the provisions of law and need not be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, 1 feel that the petitioners were entitled to a notice by the Prescribed Authority before the impugned judgment dated 16-4-1988 was rendered by the Prescribed Authority. True, there is no provision under the Act to give fresh notice to the tenure holder but in the facts and circumstances of the present case when the petitioners had preferred an appeal against the decision of the Prescribed Authority regarding surplus area and further proceedings had been stayed in the appeal but the appeal was dismissed in default and thereafter when the matter came before the Prescribed Authority sufficient time had elapsed and an additional factor had come into existence that operation of the declaration of the surplus area had been stayed. Therefore, fifteen days time given in the order determining surplus area of the petitioners had already expired when the matter was taken up by prescribed Authority after the decision in appeal. The rule of fair play indicates that the tenure holder should have been afforded an opportunity to indicate his choice before final order was passed by the Prescribed Authority, after the decision in appeal. Since the Prescribed Authority had not afforded a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to indicate their choice after the decision in appeal, I think that the impugned judgment dated 16-4-1988 cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the present case : 6. It is also noteworthy to observe that the petitioners could file an application before the Prescribed Authority for recalling the impugned order dated 16-4-1988. Since in the counter-affidavit the relevant fact has not been denied by the State regarding giving of petitioners have approached this court within reasonable time from the date of the im pugned judgment so no useful purpose would be served by dismissing the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Rather ends of justice demand that the impugned judgment should be quashed and the Prescribed Authority should be directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to indicate their choice regarding the area to be retained by them. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that an application for restoration has been moved before the appellate court which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal for default. If the application moved by the petitioners is allowed by the appellate court, in that case it would be open to the appellate authority to indicate in its order regarding choice to be exercised by the petitioners when the appeal is finally disposed of. 8. For the foregoing observations, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 164-1988 contained in Annexure 11 attached with the writ petition, is hereby quashed and, the Prescribed Authority is directed to give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to indicate their choice about the area declared as surplus to be retained by them. 9. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.