JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of heirs of respondent no. 1 who have already been brought on record and are represented by one Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, learned Advocate.

2. Learned Standing Counsel is present but he has not filed any counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Despite time granted for the said purpose, the matter is of the year 2012 and so the Court proceeds to hear and decide the writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

4. The present writ petition arises out of proceeding under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 wherein, the application of the deceased respondent no. 1 for correction of map came to be allowed on the basis of report submitted by the Nayab Tehsildar, Sadar Mau dated 24th February, 2003. The petitioners' revision against the order passed by the Collector has also been dismissed.

5. The sole ground taken in the present petition is that Collector, Mau fell in serious error of law in accepting the report of the Nayab Tehsildar as it is without examining the Nayab Tehsilar who had prepared the report on the spot. The contention is that until the r