( 1 ) THIS application seeks modification of a typographical error which has kept in the order dated 12th April, 2001 passed by this court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the master plan 62 ground coverage 50% and F. A. R. 60 which has been mentioned in the impugned order is not correct. As per the master plan 62 for general warehousing and storage etc. The FAR is 150 and maximum ground floor coverage is 60%. ( 2 ) WE have perused the master plan for 1962 which is at page 111 of the paper book. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent says that the master plan of 2001 was to be applicable to the case of the petitioner. The argument of the respondent is devoid of any merit and is simply to harass the petitioner. When the order was passed, the reliance was placed by the respondent on the matter plan of 1962 as is discernible form the index which has been filed by the respondent prior to page 106 of the paper book which was filed on 14th February, 2001 by the then Standing counsel for DDA. In the said index the relevant copy of the master plan has been filed and those pages of the master plan pertains to the 1962 master plan. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondent in the reply to the present application is simply an afterthought, without any basis. We allow the application of the petitioner and modify the order dated 12th April, 2001. The petitioner shall be entitled in terms of master plan 62 for the purpose of general warehousing and storage etc. FAR 150% and maximum ground floor coverage of 60%. Ordered accordingly. ( 3 ) THE application is allowed and stands disposed of. .