JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against judgment and decree of Additional Commissioner, Moradabad dated 31.7.1989, passed in Revision No. 115 of 1988-89. That revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner against the judgment and decree 7.9.1987 in suit No. 117 of 1985-86 under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in which the parties agreed that their share is each. The preliminary decree was passed and prepared accordingly. The lots were prepared against which the revisionists filed objection, that the lots are not prepared according to law. There was family partition between the parties and they were in possession in accordance with that family settlement. It was totally ignored, hence the lots were not prepared in accordance with family settlement. 3. The learned trial court as well as the re-visional court has rejected the claim of the revisionist, hence this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the family settlement was the basis of the possession of the parties, hence the lot should have been prepared on the basis. The lots are not prepared according to that, hence the lots prepared by the trial court should be set aside and be directed to prepared the lots according to family settlement. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that family settlement was not acted upon. There was land acquisition case regarding the holding in which the land which was required under the Land Acquisition Act both parties were awarded compensation and both of them received share each of the compensation amount. He also argued that a portion of land was also jointly sold and both the parties received half amount of the sale consideration. Therefore, it was necessary that the lots should have been prepared afresh. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties and his clients again offered that any of the lot may be given to the revisionist the choice is still pending to the revisionist. He want only to harass him. Therefore, it was necessary that the lots should have been prepared afresh. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties and his clients again offered that any of the lot may be given to the revisionist the choice is still pending to the revisionist. He want only to harass him. He also contended that the revisionist wants that he should be given his whole holding in one village which is not possible in view of the land acquisition and sale. 8. In these circumstances when after, the family settlement two transfer has taken place, therefore, family settlement cannot now be the basis for allotment of lots. Moreover open choice was offered by the opposite parties to the revisionist to take any of the lots, this itself indicates his fairness. No any other point was argued in this revision. Hence in this revision there is no force and it is accordingly dismissed.