Judgment : A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As both these Writ Appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 05.10.2015 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C).Nos.7202 and 20449 of 2007, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these Writ Appeals are as follows: WP(C).Nos.7202 of 2007 was filed by one D. Mohana Chandran seeking a direction to the respondents-appellants herein to implement the corrections that were directed to be carried out in O.A.No.820 of 1974 and in its judgment, with respect to the survey numbers and extent of lands covered therein, based on a document (Ext.A4 assignment deed dated 29.04.1968) that had already been admitted in evidence and relied upon by the Tribunal while disposing the O.A at first instance through its order dated 11.01.1997. It would appear that, against the original order of the Forest Tribunal disposing the O.A, the matter was taken up in appeal before this Court in M.F.A No.290 of 1977, which was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P2 judgment dated 07.01.1980, and a Review Petition preferred by the State was also dismissed by the order dated 29.07.1993 in R.P No.273 of 1984. The order that was sought to be implemented through WP(C).No.7202 of 2007 filed by the aforesaid D. Mohana Chandran was one wherein the Tribunal considered an application for correction preferred by the writ petitioner for correction of the extent of land noted against Survey Nos. 430/1 and 433/1 in Kadukkamkunnu Village in Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad District, of the land more particularly described in Ext.A4 assignment deed, which the Tribunal had relied on while disposing the O.A earlier. The Tribunal, after considering the applications preferred by the writ petitioner, found as follows in Ext.P12 order dated 17.08.2002 in IA Nos.585/1998 and 589/1998 in O.A No.820/1974. " The point:- The applicants case is that while they were copying down the schedule from Ext.A4 assignment deed No.1345/68 dated 29.4.68 executed by Raman Pillai and others in favour of Yoosaf to the O.A Schedule a mistake has crept in. The extent noted against the survey number 430/1 is 0.77 cents and 433/1 is 29.84 cents in Ext.A4 assignment deed. But while writing it in the O.A they have written it as follows: 430/1 – 29.84 cents. The extent noted against the survey number 430/1 is 0.77 cents and 433/1 is 29.84 cents in Ext.A4 assignment deed. But while writing it in the O.A they have written it as follows: 430/1 – 29.84 cents. Therefore they want to correct it as in Ext.A4 by incorporating the extent of 77 cents in 430/1 and 29.84 cents in 433/1. They don't want to make any amendment in the total extent of 24 acres allowed to them as per the order. I am satisfied that there was a genuine mistake in taking down the survey number, extent from the schedule of Ext.A4 document in the O.A. I therefore allow both the applications. " 3. WP(C).No.20449 of 2007 was preferred by the State and custodian of forest seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid Ext.P12 order passed by the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, permitting the corrections sought for by the writ petitioner in WP(C).No.7202 of 2007. 4. The learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petitions, took note of the contention of the learned Government Pleader, relying on the judgment of this Court as well as that of the Supreme Court, that inasmuch as the earlier order passed by the Forest Tribunal in the O.A had merged in the judgment of this Court that dismissed the M.F.A preferred by the State as also the order in the Review Petition preferred by the State that was also dismissed by this Court, a fresh application for correction of mistakes that had occurred in the O.A No.820 of 1974 that was filed before the Forest Tribunal and the order of the Forest Tribunal in that O.A could not have been entertained, and corrections effected at the instance of the writ petitioner. However, the learned Judge found that the State had not raised any such plea before the Tribunal at the time when the common order of the Tribunal that was impugned in its Writ Petition was passed by the said forum, and therefore, having failed to raise such a plea before the Tribunal, it was not not open to them to raise such a plea to the first time in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India . As regards the propriety of the Tribunal permitting the corrections sought for by the writ petitioner in the O.A and the final order in the O.A, the learned Single Judge found as follows at paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment: “30. Regarding the prayer for amendment of O.A.No.820 of 1974 and Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal in that O.A., the Tribunal in Ext.P12 common order accepted the case of respondents 1 to 3 herein that, while copying down the schedule from Ext.A4 assignment deed to the O.A. schedule mistakes have crept in the extent and survey number noted. Therefore, they want to correct it as in Ext.A4 assignment deed dated 29.4.1968 (Ext.Al in the O.A.) executed by Raman Pillai and 2 others in favour of Yusuf and they don’t want to make any amendment in the total extent of 24 acres ordered to be restored as per Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal in Ext.P12 common order concluded that, there was a genuine mistake in taking down the survey numbers and extent from the schedule of Ext.A4 assignment deed and accordingly allowed Exts.P6 & P8 applications, as prayed for. The said reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P12 order is also not perverse or patently illegal, warranting an interference of this Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India .” 5. In both these Writ Appeals, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether the findings of the learned Single Judge above with regard to the legality and propriety of the order of the Forest Tribunal that permitted a correction of factual mistakes that had occurred in the O.A as also in the final order before disposing the O.A could have been corrected at the instance of the applicant in the O.A (the writ petitioner in WP(C).No.7202 of 2007). On a consideration of the rival submissions made before us by the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.T.P.Sajan and the learned counsel Sri.James Koshy appearing on behalf of the respondents, we find, as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, that all that was sought for by the original applicant before the Tribunal was a correction of certain factual and typographical mistakes that had crept into the O.A as also in the order disposing the O.A. It is trite that orders correcting the typographical mistakes, which do not have a bearing on either the extent of land or on the location of the land that was a subject matter of the O.A can be corrected by the forum that first considers the lis, subject to the said forum being satisfied that the correction was only of typographical or arithmetical mistakes. In the instant cases, in the light of the clear findings of the Tribunal that the mistakes were purely factual and typographical in nature, as is apparent from the quoted text of the order of the Tribunal extracted above, we find that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge that finds in favour of the writ petitioner on the said issue. Resultantly, these Writ Appeals preferred by the State fail and are accordingly dismissed.