In a significant ruling on the scope of constitutional remedies, the Bombay High Court has held that Article 226 of the Constitution empowers courts to rectify typographical errors in land acquisition notifications and awards, even after the authorities have become functus officio. The judgment underscores that inadvertent errors causing substantial hardship to parties cannot be left unaddressed merely on technical grounds, reaffirming the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent injustice.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Dispute
The petitioner, Rain Basera SRA CHS Limited, a cooperative housing society, approached the Bombay High Court seeking directions to rectify a typographical error in a Land Acquisition Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1973 and a Land Acquisition Award dated 14.06.1975. The error pertained to the incorrect recording of CTS No. 611 instead of CTS No. 699 in both documents. This mistake had cascading consequences, leading to the petitioner facing hardship in property development and slum rehabilitation efforts.
Key Facts
Land Details:
CTS No. 611: Admeasuring 438.50 sq. meters, situated at Village Malad (East), Taluka Malad, District Mumbai Suburban. This land corresponds to Survey No. 267 and is landlocked, surrounded by other CTS numbers and encroached by slum dwellers.
CTS No. 699: Admeasuring 5580 sq. meters, corresponds to Survey No. 266 (Part). This was the land intended to be acquired for the Goregaon-Mulund Link Road project.
Timeline of Events:
19.03.1971: Superintendent Engineer, Road Development Department, requested the Additional Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, to initiate acquisition proceedings for the Goregaon-Mulund Link Road.
12.04.1971: Additional Collector referred the matter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Highway.
Joint Survey (1971): Conducted by Deputy Engineer, Road Development, and Land Surveyor. CTS No. 699 was inadvertently recorded as CTS No. 611.
09.02.1973: Notification published under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) read with Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The error persisted, recording CTS No. 611 instead of CTS No. 699.
14.06.1975: Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) passed the award, again recording CTS No. 611 erroneously.
23.07.1997: City Survey Officer, Mumbai, excluded CTS No. 611 from acquisition proceedings for the Goregaon-Mulund Link Road.
31.07.2018: Corrigendum issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), declaring CTS No. 611 (Part) as a slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
2023: Petitioner addressed a letter to Respondent No. 3 (City Survey Officer) seeking deletion of the entry dated 22.07.1997 from the property card of CTS No. 611, arguing that CTS No. 611 was never acquired and that CTS No. 699 was the correct land.
08.07.2025: Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 dismissed by the District Superintendent of Land Records.
23.07.2025: Petitioner made a representation to Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Collector), which remained pending.
15.12.2025: Respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the City Survey Officer seeking clarification.
09.03.2026: City Survey Officer admitted the error in a letter (Exhibit P), stating that CTS No. 611 was wrongly mentioned instead of CTS No. 699 in the notification and award.
Procedural History
2023-2025: Multiple correspondences with authorities, including Respondent No. 4 (developer) and Respondent No. 2, seeking rectification of the error. No response was received.
08.07.2025: Appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code dismissed.
23.07.2025: Representation to Respondent No. 2 pending.
07.07.2026: Present Writ Petition (No. 2304 of 2026) filed before the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs:
Directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to substitute CTS No. 699 in place of CTS No. 611 in the notification dated 09.02.1973 and the award dated 14.06.1975.
Directions to Respondent No. 3 to delete the entry dated 22.07.1997 from the Revenue Records and Property Register Card for CTS No. 611.
Alternatively, directions to Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously decide the representation dated 23.07.2025.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was:Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can rectify a typographical error in a land acquisition notification and award after the authorities have become functus officio?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Error Admitted by Authorities: The petitioner relied on Exhibit P, a letter from the City Survey Officer, which admitted the typographical error and acknowledged that CTS No. 611 was incorrectly recorded instead of CTS No. 699 in the notification and award.
Hardship Faced: Due to the error, the petitioner faced substantial hardship
