JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have come to this Court challenging the order purported to have been passed under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 by which it has been held that certain land which was less in the map prepared during the consolidation proceedings need to be corrected. Such correction was made after notice and the petitioners also filed their objections and thereafter corrections have been made. While deciding the revision filed against the order filed under Section 28, the petitioners have not shown as to what prejudice is being caused to them by the aforesaid correction. With regard to prejudice being caused and the map being corrected no grievance has been raised by the petitioners, therefore, the revisional court dismissed the revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 bars such correction. 3. In the present case it seems that proceedings under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 have been initiated only for correction of map in which the error has been noticed and has been sought to be corrected. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In my view, there is no error in the order which may merit further consideration by this Court. If in fact, certain land of the petitioner is being taken away by the aforesaid correction, then the petitioners have remedy of filing a suit for establishing their right over the land. In writ proceedings no such direction can be issued. 6. The writ petition has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed.