BALIA, J.— These two petitions arise out of the same proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the matter of determining the ceiling area of agricultural land held by one Bhani Singh son of Shri Panney Singh of village Balasar Tehsil Nohar District Ganga Nagar. (2). The facts which give rise to these petitions are as under :- (3). The petitioner in both the petitions purchased agricultural lands from Bhani Singh vide registered sale-deed dt. 3/10/63 and the same were mutated in their favour in December, 1963. Since then, they are in possession of the lands in dispute. The said Bhani Singh filed a return under Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 29/9/65 declaring the lands held by him for the purposes of ceiling. In the said return, said Bhani Singh also stated lands including the one in dispute, transferred by him and which were not to be recognised for the purposes of determining the ceiling area. During the course of said proceedings, said Bhani Singh also appears to have given option for the lands which he intended to retain with him and which he intended to surrender as surplus land. No notice of these proceedings was given to the transferees of the said land. According to the option given by said Bhani Singh, he chose to retain lands which were in his possession upto the ceiling area. Additional lands remaining in his possession and the lands transferred, which were not recognised for the purpose of ceiling and which were in the possession of the transferees, were offered as surrender of surplus lands in terms of Sec. 30-E. (4). The Sub Divisional Officer, Nohar passed an order on 6/9/75 (Ex.8) determining the ceiling area in respect of Bhani Singh specifying the lands to be permitted to be retained by the said Bhani Singh and also specifying the lands which were to be acquired under ceiling. Against the aforesaid order, petitioners preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority impleading Bhani Singh as a respondent. Their appeal was dismissed vide Annex. 10 dated 26.3.76 by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 21.10.1976 (Annex.12) partly accepted the revision filed by the petitioner. Their appeal was dismissed vide Annex. 10 dated 26.3.76 by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur. The petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 21.10.1976 (Annex.12) partly accepted the revision filed by the petitioner. While upholding the determination of the ceiling area and holding that transferees have no right to be heard, the Board was of the opinion that under the provisions of Sec. 30 E of the Act, acceptance of option by the S.D.O. of surrendering the transferred land while the tenant himself was in possession of unencumbered land, was contrary to the provisions of the Act & learned S.D.O. has committed an error. In view of this , the Board remanded the case back to the S.D.O. with the direction that the S.D.O. should accept the surrender of unencumbered land to the extent it is available with Bhani Singh and if that land is insufficient then the land sold to the petitioners and others may be considered for acquisition. (5). After the aforesaid order Ex.12 was made with which the petitioners were satisfied, an application was moved by Srnt, Nan Kanwar and others, respondents No. 5 to 11 alleging themselves to be the Legal Representatives of Bhani Singh inter alia on the ground that the revision filed by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue was not maintainable being against a dead person, inasmuch as, Bhani Singh had died as far as back on 2/5/75 and the judgment which was delivered against a dead person was also nullity. This plea of the L.Rs. of Bhani Singh found favour with the Board and by its order dated 14/10/80, the Board declared that the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 21/10/76 (Ex.12) was a nullity and the revision should be heard now on merits and subsequently by another order dated 4/12/80 (Ex.16), the revision petition itself was dismissed as not maintainable having been filed against a dead person. The petitioners filed a revision petition alleging that the date of death of Bhani Singh disclosed by the Legal Representatives appears to be incorrect and if the date of death, disclosed by the L.Rs. of Bhani Singh is taken to be correct then all the proceedings including the order passed by the S.D.O. will be nullity as the same also have been passed against a dead person. of Bhani Singh is taken to be correct then all the proceedings including the order passed by the S.D.O. will be nullity as the same also have been passed against a dead person. This review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by order dated 5.1.81 (Ex.16). Hence these petitions before us. (6). No return has been filed on behalf of any other respondents. (7). We have heard Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Dave, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. (8). It was contended by Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that if an order passed against a dead person under the ceiling proceedings, is held to be nullity then all the proceedings including the determination of ceiling by the S.D.O. ought to have been declared as nullity, inasmuch as when admittedly the deceased Bhani Singh had died on 2.5.75 much before the order dated 6.9.75 Ex. 8 was passed, the original order itself cannot be allowed to stand and the proceedings should have been continued only after bringing the L.Rs. on record. In the alternative, it was argued by the learned counsel that at any rate, the acceptance of option given by Bhani Singh for surrendering the transferred land as surplus land and retaining the unencumbered land in his own possession was contrary to the provisions of Chapter III B particularly of Sec. 30 E. According to the learned counsel, it is mandate of law that the holder must first surrender the remaining land in his possession which is unencumbered and if that land is not sufficient to the extent of acquisition, ordered under the ceiling proceedings then only the lands transferred could be surrendered for acquisition. Learned counsel has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court rendered in Banwarilal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and in Kastoor Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2). (9). On the other hand, learned Addl, Govt, Advocate contended that the petitioner being transferees of the land, they have no locus standi to challenge the order passed under the provisions of Chapter HI B in any manner and, therefore, these petitions ought not to be entertained. (10). Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised before us and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex. (10). Having given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised before us and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex. 10) in proceedings initiated against a dead person, cannot be sustained and the same is void. (11). So far as the surplus land, determined under the provisions of Chapter III B for determining the ceiling area in the case of Bhani Singh is concerned, the petitioners themselves have stated in their writ petitions that they are satisfied with the order passed by the Board of Revenue Annex. 12 dated 21.10.76 granting relief regarding acceptance of option only. Moreover, in view of the authoritative pronouncement by a full bench of this Court, no notice to transferees is necessary for determining the surplus area under the ceiling law. The transferee can have no locus standi to challenge the quantum of ceiling area, determined by the Authorised Officer as surplus, held by the concerned tenant. That apart, proceedings were initiated before S.D.O. validly by filing of returns by Bhani Singh and determination of ceiling area was done in accordance with those returns. The legal representatives also having made no grievance against the determination of total quantity of surplus land to be acquired under the provisions of Chapter III B, we are not inclined to interfere with determination of ceiling vide Ex. 8. (12). However, we find force in the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question arose before the learned Single Judge of this Court in Banwari Lals case (supra) wherein transferer has given option for surrendering the lands already transferred by him and in possession of transferee while retaining the lands in his own possession under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural (Holdings) Act, 1973. It was contended before this Court in Banwari Lals case (supra) that in absence of any specific provision circumscribing the choice of land by the transferer to be retained by him and in the absence of any provision empowering any Officer to compel the person first to surrender the untransferred land only thereafter if there still remains the balance of surplus land to be delivered to the State, then the transferred land can be surrendered by him and the person cannot be compelled to surrender the land remaining in his possession by issue of a writ. This argument was repelled and it was held as under : — "The transferee comes into picture only in connection with taking possession of the balance of surplus land meaning thereby that when the entire land remaining in possession of the transferor has been surrendered and there still remains the balance of surplus land to be taken possession of, then possession of that balance of surplus land can be taken from the transferee. It is true that there is no specific provision empowering the Authorised Officer either to compel the transferor to surrender the surplus land out of the land which is with the transferor but this in my opinion, is implicit in the very scheme of things.... If this view is not taken then the obligation of the transferor remains unenforceable and the object of this particular provision, that is, of creation of the obligation would be defeated." (13). This view was reiterated by this Court again in Kastoor Chands case (supra), in a matter arising under Sec. 30 E of the Chapter HI B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which deals with the situation similar to the one, dealt with by the provisions under consideration in Banwari Lals case (supra). We are in agreement with theview expressed by the learned Single Judge in the two cases, referred to above. (14). In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow these petitions in part and quash all proceedings subsequent to passing of order Ex. 8 and modify the order Ex. 8 passed by the S.D.O. Nohar on 6/9/75 by setting aside the direction contained therein regarding surrender of surplus land and exercise of option by Bhani Singh and further direct the S.D.O. to consider the options submitted to him for surrendering of surplus land by Bhani Singh on the relevant date in the light of the aforesaid decision and decide the question of surrender of surplus land afresh in accordance with law and he is further directed to ensure that first that land is being surrendered by the holder of the land which remains in his possession after transfers and thereafter only if there still remains the balance of surplus land to be acquired by the State then the land of the transferees be allowed to be surrendered in accordance with the option.