Hari Swarup, J. - (1.)THIS petition has been filed by certain persons who had been granted Pattas under sub-section (2) of section 26 of the U.P. Imposi tion of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. After the interim period came to an end, settlement of that surplus land was alleged to be made in favour of res pondents nos. 3 to 7. The petitioners claim that the Pattas in their favour be quasl.rd so that the land may remain with the petitioners. The proviso to section 26-A of the Act is the proviso which the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon for the petitioner's right to get Pattas, Section 26-A runs as under:- "The surplus land let out to any person for an interim period under sub-rcotion (2) of section 26, as ft stood immediately before the com-menc:.raent of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment), Act, 1969, shall at the end of such period, be resumed by the Collector, and, there after, settled in accordance with the provisions of section 27; Provided that where such person is a person who would if the surplus land so let out were excluded from consideration and if he was a resident of the circle he would have fallen under any of the clauses (b) to (h) of sub-section (1) of section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, then so much of such land, as together with the area, if any, otherwise held by him aggregate to not more than 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres) shall, at the desire of that person, either before or at the end of such period, be settled by the Collector with that very person." The proviso shows that a person holding the Patta has to desire that the Collector or the officer concerned may grant the lease in his favour under section 27 of the Act. The relevant date for this desire will be the date when the interim period comes to an end on the expiry of the period for which interim allotment is made. In the present case, there is no assertion of fact that the petitioners had ever expressed their desire to get the land settled with them as contemplated by the proviso to section 26-A. The only assertion in the petition is that the petitioners always desired and still desire that the land be allotted to them. There is no allegation that they ever made any expression of their desire to the authority concerned. The petition, on the other hand, shows that they made no application for the grant of the Patta or about expression of their desire. The reason for omission as contained in the peti tion is that they were not given any suoh opportunity by the other side before granting the Pattas to respondents nos. 3 to 7. The provisions of section 26-A show that the stage for expression o f desire comes prior to or at the end of the interim lease and ends with the grant of Patta in favour of other persons. The assertion by the petitioners that they were given no opportunity to file the objection because they were not aware of the grant of the Pattas in favour of respondents nos. 3 to 7, is thus of no consequence. Moreover, in the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the petitioners were given an opportunity to make out a case for grant of Pattas in their favour, but they never availed of the opportunity. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to controvert this allegation. The learned counsel has contended that as the petitioners had always the desire to continue to 1 e the holders of the land, it was not necessary to announce it to the collector and the land could not be settled with the res pondents. There Is no merit in this contention as when the Jaw refers to an act being done at the desire of a person, it implies the expression of that desire. No person can be deemed to be desiring an authority to do a certain act without informing him of his desire that it be done. Therefore, even if the petitioners were having the desire to get the land settled with them, tliey did not comply with the law requiring the expression of desire. The petition accordingly has no merits. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.