JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - In this petition, the judgment of the revisional authority dated 1-8-1981 has been challenged. 2. The petitioners contend that the revisional authority has patently erred in observing that the parties were agreed that the area in dispute should be kept out of Consolidation. 3. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation enhanced the value of the tube-well on the objection of the contesting opposite partes and the revisional authority has not said a word about it hence the proceedings before the revisional authority were illegal and the impugned judgment should be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has supported the judgment of the revisional authority. He asserts that the consent was given before the revisional authority and that no illegality has been committed by not dealing with the question of valuation when the disputed area has been made a chak by the revisional authority. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In my opinion the impugned judgment has, done substantial justice between the parties and it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned judgment. If the parties had not agreed before the revisional authority it is incumbent upon the petitioners to approach the revisional authority and rake up the point before it. Ordinarily the statement of fact given in the impugned judgment should be accepted and I have no reason to take contrary view in the case. 6. As regards the valuation question raised by the petitioners it is sufficient to indicate that the disputed area has been made A chak and all the contesting parties are co-tenure holders and they would be benefited by the tube-well existing on the disputed area which has been made A chak hence substantial justice has been done between the parties and if the revisional authority has not specifically touched the question of valuation it has not patently erred in this regard. Since the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had given the disputed area to the petitioners hence the question of valuation had assumed importance but when the disputed area has been made A chak the question of valuation has no significance in the circumstances of the present case. 7. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Since the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had given the disputed area to the petitioners hence the question of valuation had assumed importance but when the disputed area has been made A chak the question of valuation has no significance in the circumstances of the present case. 7. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. 8. The stay order 1981 is hereby vacated.