JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the revenue authorities in Ceiling Case No.95 of 1975-76, whereunder after granting units to the petitioners their lands have been declared surplus and acquired in terms of the gazette notification published under Section-15 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It appears after remand by the Board of Revenue the matter was considered by the Additional Collector and the collector, Munger under orders dated 19.3.1988 and 20.1.1997, Annexures-2 and 3, whereunder the land holders, namely, the petitioners have been allowed to retain 150 acres out of 367.22 acres and 217.22 acres of land has been declared as surplus. From the order of the Board of Revenue dated 17.5.1999 it appears that the case was remanded by the Board under order dated 15.4.1986 passed in Case No.29 of 1985 to consider the following points:- (i) Classification of land. (ii) Exclusion of land falling within the municipal limit. (iii) Grant of Unit to the adult and unmarried daughters of the land holder. (iv) Exclusion of 27.11 acres of land voluntarily surrendered by the land holder. Whereafter the learned Collector and the additional Collector, Munger considered the matter and under order dated 19.3.1988, Annexure-2 passed by the additional Collector, Munger the residential house of the petitioners situate in Munger town and the lands attached to it have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding. The challenge of the petitioners to the classification of land in question is also of no substance as the authorities themselves under order dated 19.3.1988 have classified the lands in question to be the Class-V category and petitioners should have no cause of grievance on the issue. On the appointed day adult daughters of petitioner no.1 were not entitled for any unit and in appreciation of such fact the adult daughters of petitioner no.1 have not been granted any unit. The lands gifted in favour of adult daughters were also in possession of the land holder on the appointed day, as such, the gift deeds executed in favour of daughters could not have been taken into account to exclude the lands in question from the proceeding. The lands gifted in favour of adult daughters were also in possession of the land holder on the appointed day, as such, the gift deeds executed in favour of daughters could not have been taken into account to exclude the lands in question from the proceeding. In view of the aforesaid concurrent finding recorded by the revenue authorities, I do not see any illegality in the order dated 17.5.1999, Annexure-5 passed by the board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioners then with reference to the averments made in the supplementary affidavit submitted that in terms of the provisions of Sec.32b of the Act the proceeding should have begun afresh as on the date Section-32b of the Act was brought on the statute, final publication under Sub-Section (1) of Section-11 of the Act was not made in the land ceiling case of the petitioners and in appreciation of such fact the authorities should have undertaken a fresh proceeding for verification under rule-8 of the Ciling Rules but the authorities having not begun the ceiling proceeding from the stage of Section-10 of the Act the entire proceeding is bad and violative of Section-32b of the Act. No factual detail with reference to the order sheet of the ceiling case has been indicated in the supplementary affidavit. In the circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to examine the contention of the petitioners with regard to Section-32b of the Act. Counsel for the petitioners finally submitted that the Board of Revenue had permitted petitioners to exercise the right of option within three months of the order but the same could not be exercised as this Court under orders dated 7.9.1999 passed in the instant case granted status quo and right of option under Section-9 of the Act could not be exercised by the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid interim order of this Court. 3 Having find no illegality in the order dated 17.5.1999, Anenxure-5, I dismiss the writ application with liberty to the petitioners to exercise the right of option within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and in the light of the option exercised by the petitioners the collector of the district shall issue corrigendum notification to the notification acquiring the lands in question under Sec.15 (1) of the Act. Interim order dated 7.9.1999 granting status quo as existing on 7.9.1999 is vacated.