JUDGMENT : S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- This case was initially preferred by State of Bihar against the revisional ORDER :dated 21 st July, 1994, whereby and whereunder the revisional authority set aside the appellate and original ORDER :and allowed the claim in favour of the land holder and the vendees. The writ petition stood dismissed for non-compliance of the Court's ORDER :against Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. 2. It is pertinent to mention that the 1 st Respondent is the land holder-Trust; 2nd Respondent is local Trustee and power of Attorney holder; and the 3rd and 4th Respondents are the vendees, who purchased the land from the land holder. 3. According to the petitioner, he had no objection in respect to land transferred by land holder to vendees as by impugned ORDER :, it has been held to be selected by land holder for retention under section 9(2) of Ceiling Act. Therefore, the writ petition, in no manner, was required to- be persuaded against the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was not interested in pressing the application against the 2nd Respondent, one of the Trustee-cum-Power of attorney holder. 4. The main question to be determined in the case is as to whether the land acquired by State of Bihar (Petitioner) in pursuance of D.A. Case No.20/85-86 measuring 3.03 acres can be held to be a 'transferred land' as envisaged under the Act for its retention by land holder under section 9(2) of the Act. 5. In this respect, I may mention that a Land Acquisition Case No. 20/85- 86 was initiated against land holder in which altogether 3.03 acres of land was acquired. Subsequently, Ceiling Case No.2/87-88 was initiated against the same very land holder-1st Respondent, wherein original ORDER :was passed on 31st May, 1990 and certain lands were declared surplus. The land holder and vendees moved upto the revisional authority when the impugned ORDER :was passed on 21st July, 1994. While lands purchased by the vendees after 9.9.70 were ORDER :ed to be treated as land deemed to have been selected by land holder for intention under section 9(2) of the Act, the land as was acquired by the State was ORDER :ed to be excluded from the ceiling proceeding. 6. While lands purchased by the vendees after 9.9.70 were ORDER :ed to be treated as land deemed to have been selected by land holder for intention under section 9(2) of the Act, the land as was acquired by the State was ORDER :ed to be excluded from the ceiling proceeding. 6. According to the counsel for the petitioner (State of Bihar), the land measuring 3.03 acres was acquired by the State in the year 1986-87, such acquisition of land in pursuance of L.A. Act amounts to transfer of land for all purposes and the same having made after 9.9.70, the provision of section 9(2) is also to be applied in respect to such land. The land so acquired by the State cannot be ORDER :ed to be excluded from the ceiling proceeding but should have been treated as the land deemed to have been selected by the land holder for retention within the ceiling area in terms with section 9(2) of the Act. 7. Though the aforesaid argument was advanced, the counsel for the petitioner (State of Bihar) could not lay hand on any provision or case laws to substantiate such argument. According to me, aforesaid argument is fallacious and misconceived. The provision of sub-section (2) to section 9 stipulates the manner in which a family is required to file option to select land for retention within the ceiling area. It is only where a land of a land holder transferred by him with or in contravention of provision of clause (2) of sub-section (1) to section 5, the land so transferred, shall to the extent of ceiling area is to be• treated to have been selected by land holder for retention within the ceiling area. Thus, the aforesaid provision can be made applicable in respect of any land, if transferred by the land holder. 8. So far as acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act is concerned, though by virtue of acquisition, the land changes hands and thereby transfer of land takes place, but it cannot be held to be a land transferred by the land holder, such transfer being under the provisions of the Act on which the land holder has no control. 9. So far as acquisition of land under Land Acquisition Act is concerned, though by virtue of acquisition, the land changes hands and thereby transfer of land takes place, but it cannot be held to be a land transferred by the land holder, such transfer being under the provisions of the Act on which the land holder has no control. 9. I, thereby hold that the land acquired by the State in pursuance of a proceeding, cannot be held to be a transfer made by the land holder nor it can be ORDER :ed to treat the same to have been selected by land holder for retention, as envisaged under section 9(2) of Ceiling Act. 10. In the present case, the authority rightly ORDER :ed to exclude the same from the ceiling proceeding, the land holder having ceased right and title in respect to such land on such acquisition. 11. Accordingly, the aforesaid submission as raised on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. This apart, no other issue having been raised by the counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned ORDER :. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.