1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 755 OF 2006 Shri Ganpati Deosthan Vs. Collector Amravati & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri M. M. Agnihotri Adv. for petitioner. Shri M. R. Joharapurkar Adv. for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 20 th APRIL, 2009. Heard. This Writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar on 16.02.2005 whereby he refused to put the petitioner in possession of the property in question. The facts are as follows: Petitioner had filed an application under Section 120 of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Act for possession of the property bearing field survey No. 16/1/A of village Aiwajpur Tal. 2 Anjangaon Surji District Amravati. This application came to be decided by the Court on 24.04.2002. The said application came to be decided by Sub Divisional Officer Daryapur. Said application was allowed and it was directed that the petitioner should be put in possession of property No. 16/1 of Aiwajpur. Against this order the respondents had preferred revision before the Additional Commissioner. Additional Commissioner Amravati rejected the revision. Writ Petition was preferred which also came to be dismissed and even Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed by the Court which was preferred by the respondent. It is after the L. P. A. was decided that actual proceedings for taking the possession were initiated before the Tahsildar. Tahsildar refused to put the petitioner in possession of the suit property No. 16/1/A on the ground that the order directs delivery of possession of 16/1 and not 16/1/A. He passed an order directing the petitioner to approach the High Court to get the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer corrected and being aggrieved by that this Writ Petition has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. Copy of the application at Annexure I clearly goes to show that petitioner had sought possession of field survey No. 3 16/1/A of Anjangaon Surji. Sub Divisional Officer who dealt with the application, in fact intended to put the petitioner in possession of the same property but it appears that through inadvertence or through mistake the word A was not typed after survey No. 16/1. It is not disputed that the property in dispute was only 16/1/A and not 16/1. In view of this it is apparent that petitioner is entitled to possession of field Sur. No. 16/1/A. Accordingly it is directed that the Tahsildar shall put the petitioner in possession of field Survey No. 16/1/A of Aiwajpur. Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE svk 4 5 6