Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the act of the respondent in acquiring the land at Survey No.141/4, 362/2D, 363/2 measuring about 3.63 acres in Thuraimangalam and Elambalur Villages, Perambalur District now belonging to the petitioner alleged to have been acquired as per G.O.Ms.No.3089 P.W.D. Gazette Vix. No.Part II Section 2 Dated 04.07.1984 as stated at Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.12284 of 2010 is against the provisions contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, illegal, null and void consequently direct the respondents to re-convey the land at Survey No.141/4, 362/2D, 363/2 measuring about 3.63 acres in Thuraimanglam and Elambalur Village, Perambalur District to the petitioner. 2. Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and 5. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel took notice on behalf of the fourth respondent and a counter has been filed by the fourth respondent/the present Chief Engineer, Trichy who has explained the error in paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.12284 of 2010 and that is explained in para No.2 of the counter affidavit in W.P.No.16369 of 2012. The said paragraph No.2 is fully extracted to clarify the error which has been caused in passing the order in W.P.No.12284 of 2010 and that is attributable to typing mistake and not for any other reason. The said paragraph No.2 is fully extracted to clarify the error which has been caused in passing the order in W.P.No.12284 of 2010 and that is attributable to typing mistake and not for any other reason. “2.I state that the averments made in para 1 is false and baseless, the 3.63 acres of land in Thuraimangalam and Elambur Village, Perambalur District acquisition draft declaration is by G.O.No.1089 dated 29.05.1984 under the Land Acquisition Act 1984 and not by G.O.3089 dated 4.7.84 and the G.O.Ms.1089 dated 29.5.1984 is published in the Gazette Notification dated 4.7.1984 and instead of the G.O.No.1089 in the earlier counter filed in the W.P.No.12284 of 2010 is only a typographical error occurred as 3 instead of No.1 as the said error of 3089 instead of 1089 had been occurred while the Form No.AA was typed in the O/o. T.N.E.B., Perambalur by as the G.O. copy 1089 dated 29.5.1984 was not neat and legible and the said mistake had been followed while giving instructions to file the Counter to the Standing Counsel/T.N.E.B. and consequently the typographical error of 3089 instead of 1089 happened in the counter filed in the earlier W.P. filed by the writ petitioner in W.P.no.12284 of 2010 and the date of the G.O. had been wrongly typed as 4.7.1984 instead of 29.5.1984 on the ground that the said G.O. dated 29.5.1984 was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 4.7.1984 and consequently the error in the G.O. and date referred above is only due to the typographical error committed by the Typist of T.N.E.B. while he had typed in getting a neat and clean copy from the illegible copy of the G.O.No.1089 dated 29.5.1984. Hence, the correct G.O. and date is only 1089, dated 29.5.1984 and not as G.O.3089 dated 4.7.1984. In this respect I respectfully state that the writ petitioner knowing fully well that the land in question is acquired and the money is also deposited and the error is only a typographical error had taken a false plea just to mislead taking advantage of the above said typographical error occurred. “ 3. In this respect I respectfully state that the writ petitioner knowing fully well that the land in question is acquired and the money is also deposited and the error is only a typographical error had taken a false plea just to mislead taking advantage of the above said typographical error occurred. “ 3. In the typed set filed along with the counter affidavit, the fourth respondent has produced G.O.No.1013, Public Works Department, Dated 12.05.1983, G.O.No.1089, Public Works Department, dated 29.05.1984 and other land transfer records to show that the G.O.No. has been wrongly stated in the earlier counter affidavit as G.O.No.3089 Pubic Works Department instead of G.O. No.1089, dated 29.4.1984. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that revenue records has been suitably corrected. The said statement made in the counter affidavit is verified based on records and recorded. 4. In this view of the matter, the very basis for filing the writ for declaration that the acquisition is illegal, null and void is based on mistake of fact and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner if still aggrieved can work out his remedy, if any, in accordance with law. The former Chief Engineer who filed a counter affidavit in W.P.No.12284 of 2010 has also filed another affidavit today before this Court expressing his apology for the mistake committed in filing the earlier counter affidavit by mentioning the wrong G.O. Number. The affidavit of the then Chief Engineer and the statement made therein is recorded. 5. As a result, the writ petition filed for declaration is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.