In a significant ruling for landowners and procedural fairness in land acquisition cases, the Bombay High Court has set aside a 1986 land acquisition award and a 2017 corrigendum relating to prime land in Kurla, Mumbai, acquired for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR) project. The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Rajesh S. Patil, in Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2018 (with connected Chamber Summonses and Interim Application), pronounced the judgment on 13 July 2026 after reserving it on 13 March 2026.
The petitioners — Zarina Dada, Saadia Maqdoom Moosa, Nasreen Saleh Salim and Farah Dada — are the legal heirs of Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada. Their father owned Survey No. 247 Pt. No. 3, CTS 913 (part), admeasuring approximately 3 acres and 5½ gunthas at Kurla. A portion measuring 1,613 sq. mtrs. was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of constructing the SCLR.
Background and Procedural Lapses
The State Government issued a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) read with Section 126(2) & (4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) on 21 October 1982, notifying lands from five survey numbers in Kurla and one in Chembur for the project. The petitioners’ specific land (Survey No. 247, Hissa No. 3 / CTS 913 pt.) was not correctly identified in the notification.
Individual notices under Section 9(3) and (4) of the LA Act were issued to wrong persons — Baitulbai Faizulla Mukadam and six others — who were not the owners. The 7/12 extract and mutation entry of 1981 clearly showed Late Dada as the kabzedar/owner. No notice was ever served on the actual owners.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed the award on 23 September 1986 without including the petitioners or their predecessor as “persons interested.” The award recorded Baitulbai and others as owners for the 1,613 sq. mtrs. portion. Possession was unilaterally taken on 7 April 2005 without notice to the petitioners and handed over to the Executive Engineer. A Section 12(2) notice of the award was also issued only to the wrong parties.
In March 1987, Late Dada’s father wrote to the SLAO informing of the death and ownership, requesting notices. The letter was received but ignored. Decades later, in 2009, the petitioners applied for a reference under Section 18, which was rejected on grounds of delay. They filed Writ Petition No. 643 of 2011. The Court directed deposit of the original award amount (₹1,42,038 plus interest of ₹1,30,432). The petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a Section 30 reference (LAR No. 9 of 2011).
In the LAR, the Deputy Collector admitted in February 2017 that the earlier officer had committed an “inadvertent mistake” by omitting the petitioners’ names despite the 7/12 extracts. On the Court’s direction to take steps “according to law,” the SLAO issued a corrigendum on 5 April 2017 (purportedly under Section 33 of the 2013 Act) amending the 1986 award after 31 years to insert the name of Late Dada and Hissa No. 3. A fresh Section 12(2) notice dated 27 April 2017 was then issued to the petitioners offering the original 1986 compensation of ₹1,42,038 plus interest totaling ₹2,72,470. The petitioners rejected it and sought compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). Their representation was rejected on 3 July 2017. They then filed the present petition.
Petitioners’ Case
Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Ayesha Damania, argued that the 1986 award was void ab initio qua their land. No lawful procedure under the LA Act was followed: the notification did not correctly identify the land, no Section 9 notices were issued, no hearing under Section 11 was given, the award never named them as persons interested, and no compensation was tendered under Section 31. An award is merely an “offer” that becomes effective only when communicated (relying on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh, Sriniwas Radhakrishnan Malani, etc.). The first official communication came only in 2017 via the Section 12(2) notice.
The 2017 corrigendum was illegal — Section 13A of the LA Act permits only clerical/arithmetical corrections within six months. After that the SLAO becomes functus officio. A corrigendum cannot revive a void award or make substantive changes after 31 years (Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi, Umesh Board Paper Mills). The original award and corrigendum violated the seven sub-rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution (as laid down in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024): right to notice, hearing, reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation, efficient process, and conclusion/vesting.
Possession taken in 2005 was illegal. The compensation offered (₹50 per sq. mtr. of 1986) was illusory in 2017 or 2026 for prime Kurla land. The Court should mould relief by directing fresh acquisition or shifting the valuation date to current market rates, citing Tukaram Kana Joshi, Vidya Devi, Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz, Loonkaran Gandhi, Barangore Jute Factory and others. The 2013 Act applied or, at minimum, current valuation under the old Act was warranted. Cause of action arose only in 2017 with the corrigendum and notice; there was no delay.
Respondents’ Stand
The State (through AGP Mr. Aseem Naphade) and MMRDA (through Mr. Saket Mone) contended that the petition was barred by delay and laches (32 years from the award, 24 years from the 1987 letter, and six years after the 2005 possession notice). Constructive notice applied (Rajasthan Housing Board). The 1987 letter showed knowledge. Non-service of Section 9 or 12(2) notices does not vitiate the award (May George). Once possession was taken under Section 16, the land vested in the State free of encumbrances and cannot be divested.
They argued that Section 24 of the 2013 Act (lapsing) does not apply because the acquisition was initiated under the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of the LA Act, not purely under the LA Act (Sandeep S. Metange, Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh Full Bench decisions). The petitioners had withdrawn their earlier challenge and chosen the Section 30 route, so they were estopped (Sarguja Transport). The LAR was the proper remedy for apportionment; validity of acquisition could not be re-agitated. The corrigendum merely corrected a clerical error following the High Court’s own direction, and the original award had attained finality. Compensation under the 2013 Act was not available.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
The Bench extensively analysed the facts and law. It held that the 1986 award never validly applied to the petitioners. Their land and names were not included; notices went to strangers; they were never heard. The award was stillborn qua them.
The 2017 corrigendum was a “patent perversity” unknown to law. Section 13A (and equivalent provisions) strictly limits corrections to six months. The SLAO had long become functus officio. A substantive change of ownership after 31 years cannot be dressed up as a clerical error. The order of the Single Judge directing amendment “according to law” did not and could not authorise an illegal act. The maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the Court shall prejudice no man) protected the petitioners from the earlier withdrawal order of 2011, which was passed on the erroneous premise that a valid award existed.
The Bench accepted that Section 24 of the 2013 Act (lapsing) does not apply to MRTP-initiated acquisitions. However, because no valid award ever existed against the petitioners, the provisions of the LA Act 1894 continued to apply via Section 114 of the 2013 Act read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act for a fresh exercise under the original 1982 notification. Fresh award determination under the LA Act was therefore required, with market value assessed as on the date of the fresh award (current rates), not 1986 rates. The Court moulded relief to ensure fair compensation under Article 300-A, relying on Tukaram Kana Joshi, Vidya Devi, Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and the seven sub-rights in Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
Non-service of notices, wrong ownership, unilateral possession, and the belated illegal corrigendum collectively rendered the entire process illegal and non-est. Delay and constructive res judicata arguments failed because the real cause of action crystallised only in 2017 with the corrigendum and Section 12(2) notice. Liberty granted in the LAR expressly preserved the right to challenge the acquisition.
Final Order
The Court allowed the petition and held:
(i) The impugned award dated 23 September 1986 read with the corrigendum dated 5 April 2017, the Section 12(2) notice dated 27 April 2017, and the rejection order dated 3 July 2017 are illegal, bad in law, null and void qua the petitioners’ land.
(ii) The respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to determine the current market value of the land by publishing a fresh award, which shall be completed within three months from the date of the judgment.
(iii) All contentions of the parties on quantum and related issues are kept open.
Pending Chamber Summonses and Interim Application were disposed of. No order as to costs.
The judgment is a strong affirmation of the rule of law in land acquisition. It underscores that government authorities cannot correct fundamental illegalities decades later through corrigenda, that landowners cannot be deprived of property without due process, and that fair and realistic compensation (at current values) must follow when possession has already been taken under a defective process. For homebuyers and landowners in Maharashtra, particularly in Mumbai’s dense urban landscape, the ruling provides a clear judicial reminder that procedural lapses by SLAOs and acquiring bodies will not be condoned, even after long delays and public projects.
Also Read: Bombay HC Allows Homebuyers’ ₹45 Lakh Refund Claim Against Godrej to Proceed
