#corrigendum

Bombay High Court ruled that a land acquisition award amended via corrigendum after 31 years is void if due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was bypassed. The Court directed fresh compensation proceedings, reinforcing that procedural compliance is non-negotiable even for decades-old acquisitions, impacting landowners and government agencies alike.

The Sikkim High Court has affirmed that a government corrigendum granting retrospective appointment entitles an employee to notional seniority and consequential promotions, even when a later irregular appointment exists, provided no third-party rights have been adversely affected. This reinforces administrative equity in service law and clarifies that procedural irregularities do not automatically nullify legitimate retrospective benefits.

Allahabad HC rules that a corrigendum cannot lawfully alter a Governor-approved Government Order to deny stipend entitlement till appointment, upholding vested rights under Article 14 and the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The judgment bars administrative modifications that retrospectively diminish financial benefits already accrued to trainees.

Delhi High Court rules that a corrigendum under the CGST Act cannot bypass statutory limitation periods or revive proceedings already concluded. The court reaffirms that statutory appeals under Section 107 are the exclusive remedy, protecting taxpayers from arbitrary reopening of cases beyond prescribed timelines.

Bombay HC rules that altering property area from 566.94 sq. mtrs to 828.24 sq. mtrs via corrigendum constitutes a substantive review, not a clerical correction, violating the functus officio doctrine under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The ruling bars authorities from indirectly reviewing their own orders without due process, impacting property rights and obligations of housing societies.

Bombay High Court rules that a corrigendum under MOFA Section 11(3) cannot be used to increase granted built-up area, as it violates the finality of quasi-judicial orders. The judgment underscores that administrative authorities lack inherent power to reopen concluded matters without express statutory authorization, impacting property developers and housing societies.

Bombay High Court holds that corrigendum cannot override substantive policy granting priority to cooperative fishing societies; lease awarded via e-tender quashed.

Bombay High Court holds that clerical clarification of undivided share in deemed conveyance does not amount to review; delay bars challenge to original order.

Bombay High Court holds that Registrar cannot issue corrigendum altering substantive content of approved cooperative bye-laws without statutory power.