JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Perused the writ petition and heard the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner has been deprived of her original area measuring, 4 Bighas out of the total area of 7 Bighas including a tube-well situate in plot no. 389. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has emphasised that the allotment of chak by the Deputy Director of consolidation is quite in consonance with the provisions of law and the area of plot no, 389 was allotted to the opposite party no. 2 with a view to give a rectangular chak to him. It has also been emphasised that the petitioner has received compensation with regard to the tube-well situate in plot no. 389, therefore, no interference should be made with the impugned judgment of the revisional court in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have considered the contention raised on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 Section 19 (e) and (f) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act read as below - "(e) every tenure-holder is as far as possible, allotted a compact area at the place where he holds the largest part of his holding : Provided that no tenure-holder may be allotted more 'Chaks' than three, except with the approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Provided further, that no consolidation made shall be invalid for the reason merely that the number of 'Chaks' allotted to a tenure-holder exceeds three ; (f) Every tenure-holder is, as far as possible, allotted the plots on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement, together with an area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plots originally held by him there 5. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not correct that the petitioner has received compensation with regard to her tube-well in plot no. 389, therefore her objection should not be entertained at this stage. True, that if the petitioner received compensation, the question might not assume much importance but one question is of importance that acceptance of compensation would arise after valid allotment in favour of the party. 389, therefore her objection should not be entertained at this stage. True, that if the petitioner received compensation, the question might not assume much importance but one question is of importance that acceptance of compensation would arise after valid allotment in favour of the party. If the revisional court had not applied its mind to the grievance of the petitioner and in pursuance of the impugned order of the revisional court the petitioner might have accepted compensation, that would not be a ground to sustain the impugned judgment. A fact which has come later would not cure the defect in the judgment. The impugned judgment of the revisional court is in clear contravention of the provisions of Section 19 (e) and (f) of the Act quoted above. 6. Since the impugned judgment is cryptic and does not deal with the claim of the petitioner in the light of the provisions of law, I think the ends of justice demand that the impugned judgment should be quashed and the revisional court should be asked to redetermine the claims of the parties. It would be open to the revisional court to entertain the claim of the opposite party no. 2 on the basis the compensation has been received by the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned judgment. Whether that fact would be sufficient in law to negative the claim of the petitioner before the revisional court would be redetermined by the revisional court in the light of the provisions of law. 7. In view of what has been said above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claim of the parties in the light of the provisions of law and the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.