( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition substitution application to bring on record legal representatives of sole petitioner has already been allowed on 18. 7. 2005. However, in the memorandum of writ petition substitution has not been carried out. Officer is directed to incorporate the substitution before issuing certified copy of this judgment. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 19. 10. 1984 passed by Prescribed authority under Ceiling Act/sub Divisional Officer, Gunnaur District Badaun in case no. 18 under Section 10 (2) of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act - State vs. Jamuna Singh. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal no. 39/13 of 1985 which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly on 17. 10. 1986. The said order has also been challenged through this writ petition. ( 3 ) EARLIER the matter had been finalised regarding extent of surplus land held by the original petitioner. The orders challenged through this writ petition relate only to choice/change of choice of the original tenure holder in respect of land to be actually taken as surplus land. The choice which the petitioner gave is mentioned on page no. 13 and 14 of the writ petition which are part of the order passed by the Prescribed authority. Prescribed authority refused to accept the choice on the ground that most of the plots given in the choice for being taken as surplus land were in river bed. The other reason to reject the choice given by the Prescribed authority was that in some of the plots offered to be taken as surplus land, original tenure holder had only a share and he was not exclusive owner thereof. In the opinion of the Prescribed authority it was more appropriate and in the interest of State to take those plots which exclusively belonged to the original petitioner. Accordingly choice of the original petitioner was accepted only in part. Appellate court fully approved the reasoning and the order of the Prescribed authority. ( 4 ) IN my opinion both the impugned orders are patently erroneous in law. Under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act tenure holder has got full right to give choice. Accordingly choice of the original petitioner was accepted only in part. Appellate court fully approved the reasoning and the order of the Prescribed authority. ( 4 ) IN my opinion both the impugned orders are patently erroneous in law. Under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act tenure holder has got full right to give choice. Share in a holding and a holding which lies in the bed of the river is taken into consideration while determining the total land held by the tenure holder in ceiling proceedings. There is therefore absolutely no reason in rejecting the choice of the tenure holder for giving such land as surplus land. ( 5 ) IN respect of separation of share of tenure holder in a joint holding, if that is to be taken as surplus land, procedure has been prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Ceiling Act. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders in so far as they are against the original petitioner are set aside. The Prescribed authority is directed to accept the choice of the original petitioner and immediately take possession of the land regarding which choice was indicated by deceased original petitioner for being taken as surplus land. .