JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The dispute raised in this writ petition is with regard to khasra no.201. The petitioners had moved an application under Section 41 (2) of U.P.Land Revenue Act which application has been rejected on the ground that the area on the spot is not tallying with the revenue map and unless the map is corrected, no demarcation can be made. It is to be noted that for correction of map the provision is provided under Section 28 of the Act. As such, unless the map is corrected no relief can be granted to the petitioners which has been recorded in the order impugned. 3. I do not find any error in the said observation. The petitioners are at liberty to move appropriate application before the appropriate authority. 4. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.