1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application (CAW) No.1810 of 2011 In Writ Petition No.5952 of 2010 (Shri Tukaram s/o Atmaram Daburkar v. The Collector (Special Land Acquisition Officer) General , Nagpur, and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.M. Agnihotri, Advocate for Applicant/Respondent No.2. Shri V.P. Maldhure, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri D.P. Thakre, AGP for Respondent No.1. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 29 th July, 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The respondent No.2 is permitted to deposit a sum of Rs.5,16,800/- with the Registry of this Court. Shri Maldhure, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the said amount. Shri Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, has no objection. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount. 2 The civil application stands disposed of. During the course of hearing of this application, it transpired that in the order dated 8-6-2011, some mistakes occurred in the dates, which have been corrected. Instead of the date, i.e. 4-5-2011 occurring at two places in the said order, the date should have been 5-5-2011 and accordingly, the corrections have been made. The problem is that the corrections have been made after the order was signed and those are initialled by the Personal Assistant Shri B.R. Wankhede. Hence, he was called in the Chamber to explain such an act. He admitted the mistake in carrying out the corrections and initialling the same under his own handwriting. His explanation was that he was appointed recently on probation and hence he was not aware of the procedure for carrying out typographical corrections in the order. He submitted that he carried out such corrections bona fide when the office brought to his notice the fact that there is a discrepancy in the date mentioned in the agreement marked as “X” for identification and the one appearing in the order dated 8-6-2011. He accepted his mistake and tendered apology with an assurance that such mistake shall not be occurred in future. In view of this, 3 I do not find any reason to proceed further against him, except to warn him that in the event if such mistake is repeated in future, it shall be dealt with strictly. In view of above, the order dated 8-6-2011 be removed from the record and placed in 'B' File and the corrected copy of the said order be prepared and placed on record incorporating the date of 5-5-2011 in place of the date of 4-5-2011. If the certified copies of the order dated 8-6-2011 are already issued, the same be recalled and corrected accordingly. If a writ is issued, then corrected measures be taken Judge pdl