JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Tarun Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Avadhesh Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 to 6 and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the order dated 03.06.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority thereby allowing the application under Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 preferred by the respondents and also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in its order dated 30.09.2002. 3. The facts in brief are that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, who was recorded tenure holder was served with the notice under Section 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 calling upon her to explain as to why area of 31-33 acres irrigated land be not declared surplus. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners, namely, Gayatri Devi filed her objections and contested the case before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority rejected her objections against which an appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. Assailing both the orders the recorded tenure holder had filed a writ petition before this Court. This Court had remanded the matter and certain aspects of the case were directed to be re-looked by the Prescribed Authority, and accordingly a fresh notice was issued where the Prescribed Authority again rejected the objections. Against the order of Prescribed Authority dated 31.03.1979, no appeal was filed by the recorded tenure holder and the order of the Prescribed Authority attained finality. 4. It seems that after the proceedings under Section 10 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were finalized by the Prescribed Authority, opposite parties no. 4 to 6, who had purchased the land from the recorded tenure holder on 16.02.1972, moved an application under Section 12-A (d) and Section 13-A of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 praying that the order dated 31.05.1979 of the Prescribed Authority may be reviewed and two plots, which had been purchased by them, namely plot no. 298 and 324 may be excluded from the land, which had been declared surplus, at the hands of the recorded tenure holder. 298 and 324 may be excluded from the land, which had been declared surplus, at the hands of the recorded tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority considering the said application allowed the same by means of order dated 30.11.1979. The petitioners had preferred an appeal against the said order stating that no notices were issued by the Prescribed Authority and the recorded tenure holder was never given any opportunity of hearing for allowing the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 filed by the subsequent purchaser, but the appeal was also rejected by means of order dated 09.10.1980. 5. Aggrieved by both the orders allowing the application of the respondents, the petitioners had preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 3473 of 1980 alleging that the Prescribed Authority had allowed the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and this Court by means of its order dated 13.09.1988 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.11.1979 and the appellate order dated 09.10.1980 and remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for passing a fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holder. 6. It is in the remand proceedings that the impugned order dated 03.06.1992 has been passed by the Prescribed Authority again allowing the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 and excluding plot no. 298 and 324 from the surplus lands at the hands of the recorded tenure holder and further directed that the surplus land will be taken from plot no. 132 N and 294 N from the lands of the recorded tenure holder. The appeal preferred by the petitioners also met the same fate by means of the order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow who confirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing both the orders, namely, order dated 03.06.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the appellate authority, has submitted that the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 can be moved only by the recorded tenure holder. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing both the orders, namely, order dated 03.06.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the appellate authority, has submitted that the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 can be moved only by the recorded tenure holder. He submits that the discretion, if any, for the choice of the land to be declared surplus lies with the recorded tenure holder and no such right is vested any subsequent purchaser to dictate to which of the land of the recorded tenure holders can be declared surplus. 8. In support of his submissions, he stated that mere provisions of Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 are demonstrative of the aforesaid fact where it is stated that in determining the surplus land under Section 11 and 12 of the Act of 1960, the Prescribed Authority shall as far as possible accept the choice indicated by the tenure holder to the plots of plot which he and other members of his family, if any, would like to retain as part of ceiling area applicable to him... 9. It is stated that Legislature in its wisdom had clearly stated that such an application under Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 for the choice of the land to be declared surplus lies only with the tenure holder. In case it was the intention of the legislature that such a choice can be given even by the subsequently purchased and the same would have been clearly mentioned in Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 but a clear prescription having been made in the statutory provisions with regard to such an application being made only by the tenure holder, it cannot be said that any person other than the tenure holder would be entitled to make an application under Section 12-A of the Act of 1960. He submits that the petitioners have always opposed the application of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 moved under Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 and accordingly once the recorded tenure holder has made objection neither the Prescribed Authority nor the Appellate Authority could have passed any order with regard to such an application moved at the behest of the subsequent purchasers, namely, respondent nos. 4 to 6. 10. 4 to 6 moved under Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 and accordingly once the recorded tenure holder has made objection neither the Prescribed Authority nor the Appellate Authority could have passed any order with regard to such an application moved at the behest of the subsequent purchasers, namely, respondent nos. 4 to 6. 10. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that in case the subsequent purchasers of the land require the land to be excluded from being declared surplus then the only option available to them is by filing objections under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1960. Once any objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1960 are filed then the Prescribed Authority are duty bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders with regard to exclusion of such land. 11. In the present case, undisputedly no objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1960 was filed by the respondent nos. 4 to 6 for exclusion of the lands and they have been resorted to an application under Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 for the purpose of exclusion of the said land. 12. This Court is of the considered view that it does not lay with the subsequent purchasers to move an application under Section 12-A of the Act of 1960 for excluding the land from being taken surplus and such an application, if any, could have been filed only by the recorded tenure holders and once this Court is of the considered view that such an application could not have been moved by the respondent nos. 4 to 6, who are the subsequent purchasers, then the same could not have been allowed by the Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, to that extent only, the impugned orders allowing the application under Section 12-A (d) of the Act of 1960 at the behest of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions contained in Section 12-A of the Act of 1960. 13. In light of the above, both the impugned order dated 03.06.1992 passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as order dated 30.09.2002 passed by the appellate authority are set aside. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.