Bombay HC: Amending Awards After 31 Years Via Corrigendum Is Illegal

In a stinging rebuke to executive overreach, the Bombay High Court has declared that a Special Land Acquisition Officer becomes functus officio after six months of passing an award, rendering any attempt to 'breathe life' into a 31-year-old decree via a corrigendum as void and non-est.

A Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Rajesh S. Patil delivered this significant ruling while hearing a challenge against the arbitrary acquisition of prime land in Kurla, Mumbai, where the state attempted to fix a decades-old procedural lapse by simply amending an existing award through a 'novel method' unknown to law.

The Invalidity of Post-Facto Award Amendments

The Court observed that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is an expropriatory legislation and must be strictly interpreted. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) had originally passed an award in 1986 but excluded the actual owners and misidentified the land. After 31 years, the state issued a 'Corrigendum' under the guise of correcting a clerical error to include the petitioners.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The SLAO had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 so as to modify the award dated 23 September 1986, inasmuch as Section 12 read with Section 13A would bring about a specific legal consequence, namely, that after the declaration of the award and after a period of six months having expired from the declaration of the award, the SLAO/Collector would become functus officio and would not retain any seisin over the award."

Mandatory Compliance with Right to Notice

The Bench emphasized that the right to notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory. Citing the principle in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & ors. ( "(2024)10 SCC 533": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 35), the Court identified seven foundational sub-rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, 1950, including the right to notice and the right to fair compensation, which were breached in this case.

The Court has following directions:

"(i) The impugned award dated 23 September 1986, read with the corrigendum dated 5 April 2017, as also the impugned notice dated 27 April 2017 issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 qua the petitioner’s land are illegal, bad in law and void. Also, the consequential order dated 3 July 2017 passed by the third respondent is held to be illegal.

(ii) Respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of the 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 be undertaken within a period of three months from today.

(iii) All contentions of the parties in this regard are expressly kept open."

Key Takeaways

Statutory Time Limits are Absolute

Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 limits the power to correct awards to six months; any correction after decades is a patent perversity and a 'mockery' of legal procedures.

Acquisition by Ambush is Unconstitutional

The Court reaffirmed that the State cannot acquire land by ambush, and the failure to serve mandatory Section 9 notices to the actual registered owners vitiates the entire process.

Constructive Knowledge vs. Mandatory Procedure

While the state argued constructive notice of acquisition, the Court held that 'money is what money buys,' and offering 1986 prices in 2026 based on a void corrigendum is a travesty of justice.

Ratio

A land acquisition award is an 'offer' that must be communicated to the person interested to be valid; once the six-month window for clerical corrections under Section 13A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 expires, the Collector becomes functus officio, and any subsequent amendment to include omitted parties or lands via a corrigendum is null, void, and non-est.

Background:

The dispute began when the State notified land in 1982 for the 'Santacruz-Chembur Link Road' under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966. Although the petitioners were registered owners, they were never served notices. An award was passed in 1986 in the name of a third party. Possession was taken unilaterally in 2005. When the petitioners sought compensation, the SLAO admitted an 'inadvertent mistake' and issued a corrigendum in 2017 31 years later attempting to bind the petitioners to 1986 valuation rates of Rs. 50 per sq. meter. The Court relied on precedents like Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. and Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. MIDC & Ors. ( "(2013) 1 SCC 353": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 437) to hold that an award is a tender of compensation that requires actual or constructive knowledge to be binding. The Court set aside the 1986 award qua the petitioners and directed a fresh determination of compensation at current market rates using the 1894 Act framework as saved by Section 114 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 read with the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1630 OF 2018
Case Title: Zarina Dada & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Ayesha Damania a/w. Mr. Netaji Gawade, Rahul Sanghvi, Nayan Bhalekar i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & Co.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4; Mr. Saket Mone a/w. Mr. Devansh Shah i/b. Vidhi Partners for respondent no. 5- MMRDA.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 290