SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition arises out of proceedings under the Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Dr. Smt. Jagjit Kaur owned and held property No. 3a, 3416 sq. Smt. Jagjit Kaur filed a return under Sec. 6 of the Act in the year 1976. A draft statement under Sec. 8 (4) of the Act was issued on 15-10-77 whereby it was proposed to acquire 1416 sq. M. of the land as being surplus. At the instance of the landholder Jagjit Kaur, the said order was set aside and she was afforded an opportunity to file objection. After taking into consideration the objections filed by Smt. Jagjit Kaur the competent Authority held by order dated 23-1-78 that Smt. Kaur was holding 1416 sq. m. of the land in excess of the ceiling limit, Aggrieved by that order Smt. Kaur filed an appeal No. 73 of 1978. The order passed by the competent Authority was set aside and it was held that Smt. Kaur was not possessed of any excess vacant land. The State filed a writ petition before the High Court which too was dismissed. The State further preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court and consequent upon the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in L. J. Johnsons case, the case was directed to be reopened. ( 4 ) AFTER the decision of the Supreme Court notices were issued by the Competent Authority to secure presence of Smt. Jagjit Kaur. The notice dated 19-12-83 was received by her daughter but nobody filed any objection. Again a notice was sent to her at the address as given by the land holder and the notice was accepted by one Sri Anand. As no objection was filed that matter proceeded ex parte and the competent Authority again declared an area of 4. 6 sq,m. as excess vacant land by order dated 6-7-86. ( 5 ) IT appears that during the said proceedings Smt. Jagjit Kaur had executed various sale-deeds in favour of various persons. On 4-1-84 she transferred an area of 670 sq. 6 sq,m. as excess vacant land by order dated 6-7-86. ( 5 ) IT appears that during the said proceedings Smt. Jagjit Kaur had executed various sale-deeds in favour of various persons. On 4-1-84 she transferred an area of 670 sq. yard in favour of Kashi Ram, the petitioner, for a consideration of Rs. 49800. 00. The sale deed was registered the same day. ( 6 ) SMT. Jagjit Kaur, the landholder did not file any appeal against the order of the Competent Authority dated 6-1-86. The petitioner who was a transferee from Smt. Jagjit Kaur filed Ceiling appeal No. 155 of 1989 before the District Judge Dehradun. The District Judge Dehradun dismissed the appeal by order dated 8-1-91. He held that the petitioner had no right to challenge the order of the competent authority and the sale deed could not be executed without prior permission as required under Section 27 of the Act. He further held that till the proceedings under the Act were made final and choice of the landholder had been finally accepted Smt. Kaur was not legally entitled to effect the sales. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Competent Authority and the Distt. Judge. ( 7 ) THE petitioner did not urge that the area which was sought to be declared as vacant land was erroneously calculated. He conceded that the area declared as excess vacant land to the extent of 1416 sq. m. was correct in view of the decision in L. J. Johnsons case as decided by the Supreme Court. He, however, urged that Smt. Jagjit Kaur had clearly expressed her choice in respect of the excess vacant land. She had indicated that the surplus land be taken from the back portion of the property that is, on the eastern side subject to carving out Rasta from the road on the back portion. The said choice should be taken into consideration. Smt. Jagjit Kaur had filed an appeal declaring the land as excess vacant. Her appeal was allowed and the order was affirmed in the writ petition by the High Court. It was only by the Honble Supreme Court in view of L. J. Johnsons case that the matter was remanded. After the said remand the choice was to be considered again and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had not given any cogent reason for not accepting the choice. It was only by the Honble Supreme Court in view of L. J. Johnsons case that the matter was remanded. After the said remand the choice was to be considered again and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had not given any cogent reason for not accepting the choice. ( 8 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has refused to consider the choice which was given by Jagjit Kaur. He took the view that Smt. Jagjit Kaur had not filed any appeal and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner was invalid as no permission was obtained as required under S. 27 of the Act. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has admittedly purchased the land from Jagjit Kaur. The fact whether the transfer deed executed in her favour is valid or not in view of Sec. 27 is to be considered only after the choice which was given by Smt. Jagjit Kaur is taken into consideration. The petitioner as a purchaser of the land was certainly entitled to urge before respondent No. 1 the objection taken by Smt. Jagjit Kaur regarding the choice given by her. A transferee to a property is subject to the provisions of Sec. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The transferee is entitled to take such plea which the transferor of such property had already taken. The principles which is involved under O. 22 R. 10 read with Sec. 141 C. P. C. will be applicable. ( 10 ) IN Ram Prasad v. Chajju, AIR 1964 All 300 it was held that where vendor did not file application to set aside the order dismissing suit in default, the vendor was entitled to file suit. It was observed at page 801 :"if the plaintiff purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, he purchased the same subject to the result of the suit. If the same had not been dismissed for default, the plaintiff would have been entitled to get his name recorded in place of the plaintiff of that suit. As the suit was dismissed for default of parties, the plaintiff will have the same rights as Baldewa had, and since Baldewa would have been entitled to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the plaintiff will also be entitled to do the same. " ( 11 ) SMT. As the suit was dismissed for default of parties, the plaintiff will have the same rights as Baldewa had, and since Baldewa would have been entitled to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, the plaintiff will also be entitled to do the same. " ( 11 ) SMT. Jagjit Kaur had given the choice in respect of the excess vacant land, if any, by indicating-that the surplus land be taken from the back portion i. e. on the western side subject to carving out the Rasta from the road to the back portion. The competent authority by order dated 23-1-78 accepted the choice with certain conditions. Smt. Jagjit Kaur filed appeal and the same was allowed by the Appellate authority and it was held that she had no surplus land, There was no occasion for the Appellate authority to consider about the choice given by Smt. Jagjit Kaur. The State filed writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority which was dismissed. It again filed appeal before Honble Supreme Court and the matter was remanded in view of LJ Johnsons case. ( 12 ) AFTER the matter was remanded as nobody put in appearance on behalf of Smt. Jagjit Kaur the matter proceeded ex parte and the competent authority declared an area of 1416 sq. m. as excess vacant land. He did not consider about the choice which Smt. Jagjit Kaur had given at the time of filing of her objection. The petitioner who had purchased the land agitated the question before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was bound to consider the choice given by Smt. Jagjit Kaur. The petitioner has admittedly purchased the land which is on the eastern side. In case the surplus land is taken from western side, the question regarding validity of the sale deed of the petitioner could be considered and respondent No. 1 will have to consider whether the sale deed will be valid for noncompliance with S. 26 or 27 of the Act. ( 13 ) IN the result the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 8/07/1991 is quashed and respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations made above. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .