R. K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Faujdar Rai at length for the petitioner. None has put in appearance for contesting respondent No. 3 though notice is presumed to be served satisfactorily as per office report dated 12-8- 98. Mr. V. K. Singh has appeared for respondent No. 2 but he is not appearing on calls. Mr. V. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, appears for respondent No. 1. He does not oppose the argument of Mr. Rai that under Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act which Mr. Rai has placed before this Court the Collector is obliged to make necessary correction if there is any error in the preparation of map. The orders of Collector and the Commissioner which are Annexures-4 and 6 respectively justify the correction in the map by which the petitioner Janhit Karini Samiti, Kamala Nagar has been found in possession of the Abadi area which has been incorrectly showing in the Chak map as plot No. 468 and the correct area according to the orders of the Addl. Collector and Commissioner should have been given No. 477 and accordingly Annexures-4 and 6 have order ed correction in the map placing plot No. 477 on the Western side of the road and placing the plot No. 468 shown on the Western side of the road to be placed on the Eastern side of the road in place of the wrongly shown plot No. 477. The impugned order passed by Board of Revenue-Annexure 7 to the writ petition has quashed the order of the Addl. Collector and Commissioner on the ground that dispute raises tenurial dispute which is not covered within the scope of Section 28 Land Revenue Act. This Court does not find any merit in the observation of the Board of Revenue that this dispute involves tenurial dispute. In fact it is a dispute of giving plot number on the different place in the map the area which the petitioner is in possession should have been given plot No. 477 area one Bigha eighteen Biswa which has been wrongly shown as plot No. 468 area only six Biswa. Therefore, the orders of the Addl. Collector and Commissioner are according to the provisions of Section 28 of Land Revenue Act Accordingly the order of Board of Revenue Annexure-7 is bad in the eyes of law. Accordingly the order Annexure-7 is quashed and the orders Annexures-4 and 6 are maintained. The writ petition accordingly succeeds. There will be no order as to cost. Petition allowed. .;