JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.E. Khan, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Fact , in brief, in the present case are that petitioners have purchased the land bearing Gata no.2024 area measuring 1 Bhigha 3 Biswa situated at village Manthar, Pargana Harha, Tehsil and District Unnao through registered sale deed from Jai Rani on 3.6.1967. 3. On the basis of sale-deed , name of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record. Due to mistake of Naqsha Navees, petitioners moved an application for correction of map under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before Collector Unnao . In the said matter , a report of draftsman as well as Tehsildar has been called which were submitted to which petitioners filed their objection . 4. However without considering the objection of the petitioner as well as without making spot inspection , petitioner's application under section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been rejected vide order dated 2.3.2015 by the Collector Unnao, challenged by the petitioners by filing revision bearing Revision No.C20151000001227 ( Hari Lal and others Vs. State of U.P.) under section 219 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act before opposite party no.1/ Additional Commissioner ( Administration ) Lucknow Division Lucknow , the same was also dismissed on 30.7.2015. 5. In view of the said factual background present writ petition has been filed. 6. Needless to mention herein that after arguing at some length , learned counsel for the parties submit that there will be no bar in the way of the petitioners to move fresh application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for correction of map. If the petitioners move fresh application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the same may be considered and decided by the authority concerned. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the impugned orders which are not in confirmatory to the principles of natural justice as no adequate opportunity has been given to the petitioners and also taking into consideration the arguments which advanced by learned counsel for the parties on an application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act. If once application under Section 28 of the Act is rejected there is no bar to give fresh application so the petitioners can be permitted to give fresh application for redressal of their grievance in the matter. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 2.3.2015 passed by opposite party no.2/ Collector Unnao and 30.7.2015 passed by opposite party no.1/ Additional Commissioner ( Administration) Lucknow Division, Lucknow are set aside with liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act for redressal of their grievance before the opposite party no.2/ Collector, Unnao within a period of two months from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously.