JUDGMENT B.M. Lal, C.J. & S.K. Singh, J. By this letters patent appeal, the impugned order dated 27.3.1996 is challenged. 2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as under : Under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). proceedings have been initiated against the appellant-vide Ceiling Case No 242 of 1983-84 ____________ 77 of 1983 in which in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act draft statement was issued declaring 94.35 acres of land of Class III land. Despite filing of objection and claiming 4 units, i.e. one for himself and 3 units for his major sons, one unit was allowed to the appellant by order dated 28.8.1986 and total area admeasuring 68.9½ acres was declared as surplus land and accordingly Notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act was issued. Against the said Notification, the appellant adopted recourse of challenging the said Notification in appeal and revision, etc. However, it appears that during the pendency of the appeal/revision before the appropriate authority, the surplus land was allotted in favour of the respondents by virtue of which, it is alleged, they came in possession in accordance with the respective area of allotment order. However, it appears that ultimately the appellant's revision was allowed and the order dated 28.8.1986 passed by the revenue authority and confirmed by the order dated 4.8.1987 by the appellate court was set aside by the Board by order dated 6.6.1989 and the case was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the provisions of Section 32-B of the Act. Thus, in accordance with the provision of Section 10(1) of the Act, the matter was considered afresh and after giving due weight-age to the direction given by the Board of Revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Act fresh Notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act was published on 14.12.1990. This also appears to have been challenged by the appellant. However, the appeal by order dated 23.12.1992 was dismissed. 3. It is contended that the classification of the land and right of option given by the appellant was not taken into consideration. The revision also met the same fate by order dated 7.4.1993. This also appears to have been challenged by the appellant. However, the appeal by order dated 23.12.1992 was dismissed. 3. It is contended that the classification of the land and right of option given by the appellant was not taken into consideration. The revision also met the same fate by order dated 7.4.1993. It is submitted that during the pendency of the revision without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of option of retaining the land, the order was passed refusing the prayer. 4. In the earlier writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 6867 of 1993, the Court by its order dated 12.10.1993, while rejecting all the submissions of the appellant allowed the appellant to exercise his right of option within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Accordingly, the appellant submitted his option for retaining the land-Vide Schedule I and according to Schedule II, the lands may be declared as surplus, and accordingly final order was passed and the lands were declared as surplus lands. However, it is alleged that instead of acting in accordance with the order passed by the High Court, the revenue authority acted contrary to it and did not pay heed to the appellant's option, etc. with the result the entire lands vested with the State. Therefore, by second writ petition, which is the subject matter of this letters patent appeal, the appellant has challenged the illegal action of the Additional Collector. 5. The learned single Judge having come to the conclusion that "the earlier notification was not valid notification the settlement of land to the settlees will not be treated as valid settlement and the land will never be vested to the State of Bihar," held that the order "cannot be said to be unjust for the reason that only with regard to 16 and odd acres of land option has not been allowed". 6. This has been challenged with vehemence by learned counsel appearing for the appellant contending that when all the Notifications declaring appellant's land as surplus land have been set aside giving option to the appellant for retaining the land with him and having submitted his option that had to be respected and only thereafter by fresh Notification the land, which was not retained by the appellant be declared surplus and only out of that land allotment could be made. The submission made by learned counsel appears to have some force. 7. Since declaration of surplus land and in pursuance thereof issuance of Notification was set aside• by the Court and option was afforded to the appellant to give list of lands which he wanted to retain with him and the appellant complied with the same, therefore, the revenue authority committed an error of law in giving effect to the earlier Notification whereby the land of the appellant was declared surplus and allotment was made. Once the Notification declaring the appellant's land surplus was set aside, automatically allotment of land in favour of the respondents came to an end and, therefore, rightly the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that "the earlier notification was not valid notification the settlement of land to the settlees will not be treated as valid settlement and the land will never be vested to the State of Bihar", since the same has been set aside. In our considered view the learned single Judge committed an error of law in holding that if option of 16 and odd acres of land has not been allowed which affects the interest of a small settlee to go out of the land after many years, the same appears to be not justified, being not in consonance with the provision of the Act and settled law. We may observe that the settlees acquire right by virtue of vesting of land with the State. Since vesting of the land with the State, as observed earlier, was set aside, the allotment automatically came to an end. This being so, the allottees do not get any right to retain the lands by virtue of earlier order whereby the land was declared surplus which is not in existence having been set aside or quashed by the revenue authority or by this Court in earlier writ petition. 8. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and consequently as a result of the aforesaid discussions it is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 9. Since the appellant has already given his option, therefore, now the authority should proceed with the case of allotting the declared surplus lands in accordance with law and we order accordingly.