ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16-12-87 and 26-3-87 passed by the Commissioner Allahabad Division and the Additional Collector/Prescribed Authority, Fatehpur, respectively in proceedings under S. 12-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pertaining to choice indicated by the petitioner. 2. It appears that the matter was earlier taken to this Court by Writ Petn. No. 1924 of 1977, which was allowed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority by judgment and order of this Court dated 25-11-1982 (reported in 1983 UPLT NOC 18), declaring the land as surplus keeping in view the choice of the petitioner. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority obtained the choice of the petitioner. The petitioner gave his choice vide application dated 24-12-85 that he wanted to retain plots Nos. 218, 219 and 336 totalling an area of 24 bighas 15 biswa 10 biswansis. But later on it was discovered that these plots were subject of sale executed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was called upon to indicate another choice. By application dated 26-3-87 another choice was given and it was indicated that plots Nos. 3, 58, 288, 99, 349 and 394 may be declared as surplus. The Prescribed Authority accepted the alternative choice given by the petitioner by the subsequent application. The Prescribed Authority declared plots Nos. 288 etc. as surplus, Against that appeal was preferred, that too failed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the subsequent application dated 26-3-87 passed in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority was manipulated and no such application was filed. It was stated in para 9 of the writ petition that the petitioner did not give any such application, and consequently the authorities erred in relying upon that application and redetermining the ,choice of the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Bharat Singh v. State of U.P., 1977 All WC 407: (1977 All LJ 375) and Bhagwan Swarup v. State, 1979 All WC (SOC No. 121) p. 70-: (1979 All U NOC 121). 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand,-urged that another application was given by the petitioner and the statement contained in para. Reliance was placed on Bharat Singh v. State of U.P., 1977 All WC 407: (1977 All LJ 375) and Bhagwan Swarup v. State, 1979 All WC (SOC No. 121) p. 70-: (1979 All U NOC 121). 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand,-urged that another application was given by the petitioner and the statement contained in para. 12 of the writ petition was denied in the counter affidavit, and it was averred that such application was filed and there was legal difficulty in accepting the earlier choice indicated by the petitioner. Hence the submission of the petitioner that no other application was filed, was erroneous. Reliance was placed on Kamlesh Kumari v. State of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 1248 : (1982 All LJ 1139). 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits. The Prescribed Authority has clearly discussed in the impugned order dated 26-3-87.(Ann. 3) that the first application was given on 24-12-85 indicating choice. But as these plots were covered by a sale deed, and the same could not be given in choice in pursuance of the provisions of S. 12-A (d) of the Act, the first choice given by the petitioner was not accepted. The provisions of S. 12-A(d) of the Act are set out below : "(d) where any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area including land which is the subject of any transfer or partition referred to in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7) of S. 5, the surplus land determined shall, as far as possible, be land other than land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, and if the surplus land includes any land which is the subject of such transfer or partition, the transfer or partition shall, in so far as it relates to the land included in the surplus land, be deemed to be and always to have been void." 6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that as far as possible the choice must be. out of the land which is not the subject-matter of transfer or partition. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it evident that as far as possible the choice must be. out of the land which is not the subject-matter of transfer or partition. In the instant case as the land indicated by the first application of the petitioner dated 24-12-85 was covered by a sale deed, consequently that choice was not accepted, and another application dated 26-3-87 was filed by the petitioner indicating the choice and that has been accepted. 7. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent application was' not filed, no evidence has been led and no positive assertion has been made. The memo of appeal has already been filed as Ann. 4 to the petition. There are as many as 1 I grounds taken in the appeal, but none of them is to the effect that the petitioner did not make any such application as given in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. Consequently, it could not be assumed that no such application dated 26-3-87 was moved by the petitioner. 8. Bhagwan Swarup v. State, (1979 All U NOC 121) (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was a case indicating the scope of S. 12-A(d) of the Act. It was held in that case that choice can he exercised under S. 12-A till such time the rights got extinguished under S. 14(3). In that case reliance was placed on Bharat Singh v. State of U.P., (1977 All U 375). In that case also the scope of choice under Sections 11, 12A and 13 was considered and it was held that the choice can be indicated even till the disposal of appeal. There is no quarrel with the propositions of law laid down in those cases. But they are besides the point. In the instant case the controversy was as to whether the second application was moved by the petitioner or not. 9. After perusing the records it is abundantly clear that the Prescribed Authority was justified in holding that the second application was filed by the petitioner. 10. But they are besides the point. In the instant case the controversy was as to whether the second application was moved by the petitioner or not. 9. After perusing the records it is abundantly clear that the Prescribed Authority was justified in holding that the second application was filed by the petitioner. 10. As regards the case Smt. Kamlesh Kumari v. State of U.P., (1982 All U 1139) (supra), relied upon by the learned Standin Counsel, in that case it was held that the choice in view of the provisions of S. 12-A(d of the Act cannot be indicated in respect o land which was subject-matter of transfer Consequently the correct interpretation o S. 12-A read with S. 12-A(d) of the Act is tha choice indicated by a tenure holder must no include the land covered by transfer. The rule of interpretation is that it must be textual and contextual. S. 12-A(d) may be read along with S. 12-A(c) to the effect that where any person holds land in excess of the ceiling area including any land mortgaged to the State Government or to a Bank, or to a cooperative land development bank or other co-operative society or to the Corporation or to a Government Company, the surplus land to be determined shall, as far as possible, be land other than the land so mortgaged. The legislature was conscious in excluding the j land which was covered by transfer or partition or which was mortgaged either to the State Government or to the Cooperative Society or to a Corporation. As the land indicated in the first choice was the subject matter of transfer, hence the same has correctly not been accepted. 11. In view of the premises aforesaid, the present petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. The interim stay dated 24-2-88 is vacated.