Rain Basera Sra Chs Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary

1
wp-2304-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2304 OF 2026
Rain Basera SRA CHS Limited …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others …Respondents

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Aditya Shirke, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP, for the State-Respdt. Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Vikramji Garewal a/w. Ms. Disha Shetty i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co.,
for Respondent No. 4.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
Date:
2026.07.08
18:05:12
+0530
VISHAL
SUBHASH
PAREKAR
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
st
DATE : 7 JULY, 2026
ORDER (Per Shreeram Shirsat, J.)
1. By this petition, the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Housing
Society, is seeking directions to the Respondent No.2 for rectifying/
correcting a typographical error that has crept in the Land Acquisition
Gazette Notification dated 09.02.1973 and in the Land Acquisition
Award dated 14.06.1975, wherein a land bearing CTS No. 611 is
wrongly mentioned instead of CTS No. 699.
2. Heard Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Vikramji Garewal, for Respondent No. 4 and Mr. Vikrant
Parshurami, learned AGP, for the State.
Vishal Parekar ….1

2
wp-2304-2026.doc
3. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the property
CTS No. 611 admeasuring 438.50 sq. meters is situated at Village-
Malad (East), Taluka-Malad, District-Mumbai Suburban. The Ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, on 19.03.1971, the
Superintendent Engineer Road Development Department had
requested the Additional Collector, Mumbai, Suburban District to
initiate the process of acquisition of a private land for a project known
as ‘Goregaon-Mulund Link Road’ and thereafter on 12.04.1971, the
Additional Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, referred the matter
pertaining to the acquisition of private land for the Goregaon-Mulund
Link Road to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Highway, for
commencing the acquisition proceedings, pursuant to which a joint
survey was carried out by the Deputy Engineer, Road Development
and Land Surveyor, District Superintendent of Land Records, Mumbai
Suburban. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, it was during this
survey that the land bearing CTS No. 699, was inadvertently recorded
as CTS No. 611 by the concerned officers. He further submitted that in
the year 1973, a notification was published under Section 126 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) read
with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the State of
Vishal Parekar ….2

3
wp-2304-2026.doc
Maharashtra, in which the error recorded in the joint survey remained
to be rectified and even in the said notification the CTS Number
remained the same i.e. the CTS No. 611, Survey No. 266 (Part)
admeasuring 5580 square meters came to be recorded instead of CTS
No. 699 (Part), Survey No. 266 (Part) admeasuring 5580 sq. meters.
4. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, in the year 1975, the
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Mumbai Suburban District
passed the award and even in the said award, Land Bearing No CTS
No. 699 came to be erroneously recorded as land bearing CTS No.
611. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, City Survey Officer, No.
5, Mumbai vide its order dated 23.07.1997, had not included CTS No.
611 towards the acquisition proceedings for the Goregaon-Mulund
Link Road.
5. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that on 31.07.2018, a
corrigendum issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, Land Bearing CTS No. 611 (Part)
admeasuring in aggregate 294.46 square meters was declared as slum
rehabilitation area under the provisions of Section 3C(1) of the
Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 pursuant to which, the Chief Executive
Vishal Parekar ….3

4
wp-2304-2026.doc
Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, issued a notification declaring
the Land bearing CTS No. 611 and admeasuring 144 sq. meters
situated at Village Malad (East), Taluka Borivali as Slum
Rehabilitation Area.
6. The Ld. Counsel submitted that due to the error that has crept
in as a result of the incorrect recording of the CTS Number and for no
fault of the Petitioner, the Petitioner had to face a serious hardship, as
the CTS No. 611 admeasures only 438.50 square meters and not 5580
square meters and secondly, the land bearing CTS No. 611
corresponds to Survey No. 267 and not Survey No. 266. The Ld.
Counsel further submitted that the land bearing CTS No. 611 is a
landlocked property surrounded on all sides by other CTS Numbers
and is entirely encroached by slum dwellers and the same could not
have been a part of the acquisition of the Goregaon-Mulund Link
Road.
7. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, in the meantime, the
petitioner along with other societies had submitted an application
under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1974 for acquisition of an area
admeasuring area of 438.50 square meters of CTS No. 611. The Ld.
Vishal Parekar ….4

5
wp-2304-2026.doc
Counsel further submitted that in the year 2023, the Petitioner
addressed a letter to Respondent No. 3, to delete the entry dated
22.07.1997, from the property card of CTS No. 611, of Village Malad
as CTS No. 611 was never acquired for the Goregaon-Mulund Link
Road and it was land bearing number CTS No. 699 which was
acquired. In response to the said letter, the Respondent No. 3 informed
the Petitioner that although the CTS No. 611 is wrongly recorded in
the property card in view of the award, the said authority does not
have the power to delete the entry and an appeal would be required to
be filed before the Competent Authority.
8. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that an appeal under Section
247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 came to be
preferred before the District Superintendent of Land Records, which
came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2025. It is further
submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that thereafter several
correspondences were entered into by the Petitioner with the duly
appointed developer, i.e., Respondent No. 4 and other authorities
seeking rectification of the error that had occurred in the said
notification dated 09.02.1973 and in the award dated 14.06.1975
pertaining to CTS No. 611, however no response was received. The
Vishal Parekar ….5

6
wp-2304-2026.doc
Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner has also made a
representation dated 23.07.2025 to the Respondent No. 2 which is still
pending.
9. The Ld. Counsel further submitted, that on 09.03. 2026, the
City Survey Officer, replying to letter dated 15.12.2025, addressed by
the Respondent No. 2, Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition
Officer No. 4, Highways, Mumbai Suburban District (SLAO) has stated
that CTS No. 611 is wrongly mentioned instead of CTS NO.699 in the
said award dated 14.06.1975. Hence, the Petitioner prayed that
directions be issued 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 and also to issue appropriate
orders/corrigendum in relation to the said notification and award. The
Ld. Counsel in the alternative prayed that directions be issued to
Respondent No. 2 to expeditiously decide the representation dated
23.07.2025.
10. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also invited the attention
of this Court to Exhibit-‘P’, which is the letter written by City Survey
Officer, Malad to the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Mumbai
Suburban District, wherein it is admitted that the CTS No. 611 is
Vishal Parekar ….6

7
wp-2304-2026.doc
wrongly mentioned in the said award and in the said notification,
instead of CTS No. 699 and that necessary rectification is required to
be carried out. The relevant observation is quoted here-in-below:
^^vkrk izLrqr izdj.kh bdMhy eqG vkys[k o iqufoZyksdu vkys[k rlsp
miyC/k /kkjhdsrhy udk’kkps vk/kkjs vls fnlwu ;srs dh] la;qDr Hkwlaiknu
ekst.kh udk’kkr l-ua- 266 iSdh ueqn dj.;kr vkysyk u-Hkw-dz- 611 gk
pqdhpk n’kZfo.;kr vkY;kps izFke n’kZuh fnlwu ;sr vkgs- R;keqGs Hkwlaiknu
{ks=kckcr >kysyk fuokMk o vf/klpwpuk ;ke/;s l-u- 266 iSdh u-Hkw-dz-
99
611 ,soth u-Hkw-dz 6 vls ueqn dj.ks vko’;d vkgs-
11. The Ld. AGP has also not disputed the said position and upon
perusal of Exhibit ‘P’ has submitted that there appears to be a bona-
fide error on the part of the officers in recording it as CTS No. 611
instead of CTS No. 699. She further submitted that from the records it
can be seen that CTS No. 611 is admeasuring 438.50 Sq. meters and
corresponds with Survey No. 267 whereas CTS No. 699 corresponds
with Survey No. 266 and therefore obviously there is an error. The Ld.
AGP however submitted that in the Notification dated 09.02.1973,
issued by the Respondent No. 1, necessary changes will have to be
incorporated and although there is an error, which has permeated in
the award dated 14.06.1975, once the award has been passed by
Respondent No 2, it has become functus officio and therefore now the
Respondent No. 2 has no power to make any changes once the award
Vishal Parekar ….7

8
wp-2304-2026.doc
is declared. The Ld. AGP therefore urged that this court may pass
appropriate orders.
12. The question that would arise for the consideration is whether
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, can rectify an error in the Notification and in the
Award, which has inadvertently crept in and where the authorities
after having issued a notification and having declared the award, have
become functus officio .
13. We are of the opinion that the Petitioners cannot be left
remediless. Upon perusal of the records and more specifically, the
letter at Exhibit ‘P’ of the Petition, it appears to be a genuine and
bona-fide mistake which has occurred purely on account of
inadvertence or due to oversight. The Petitioner, due to such error, has
already faced several hardships and therefore this Court under Article
226 of Constitution while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, can
exercise the power to correct the obvious error which has
inadvertently crept into the notification dated 09.02.1973 and
subsequently been carried into the Land Acquisition award dated
14.06.1975.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has invited the attention of
Vishal Parekar ….8

9
wp-2304-2026.doc
this Court to the judgement of Smt. Sushila Shivram Patil & Ors. v.
Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) Metro Centre No.1, Uran & Anr in
Writ Petition No. 1185 of 2023 wherein it has been observed as under:
“ 8. Though the 1st Respondent may be justified in
pleading the bar of limitation, the Petitioners cannot
be left remediless. From the record, it is obvious that
there is a clerical or typographical error. Ms Crasto,
the learned AGP, on instructions, also did not dispute
that this is a clerical or typographical error. She stated
that the 1st Respondent could not correct this error
only because of the bar of limitation in Section 13A of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. She pointed out that
even Section 33 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 empowers the Collector
to correct clerical errors provided application for
correction is made not later than six months from the
date of the award.
9. Considering the above position, and since the
Petitioners cannot be left remediless, a case is made to
exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the
1st Respondent to correct the obvious clerical error
that has, perhaps inadvertently, crept into the award
published on 10 January 2018 (at pages 17 to 23 of
the paper book).
10. Recently, in Neha Shroff v. The State of
Maharashtra [CIVIL Appeal No.5098/2025], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reminded that the
Constitutional Court’s powers cannot be fettered by
any alternate remedy, and injustice, whenever and
wherever it takes place, should be struck down as an
anathema to the Rule of Law and the provisions of the
Constitution. The petitioners cannot be deprived of
the redetermined compensation based on an admitted
and obvious error. This petition deserves to be
allowed.
11. The 1st Respondent must now substitute “11”
Vishal Parekar ….9

10
wp-2304-2026.doc
with “112” in paragraph 5 of the award, which
describes the acquired land. This exercise must be
completed within six weeks from today, and the
corrected award must be issued to the Petitioners
within the same period. If any changes are to be made
to the published award, the 1st Respondent must
ensure that this is done within six weeks from today. ”
15. We are in agreement with the authority relied upon by the Ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner.
16. In view of the above, the Petition is allowed. The Respondent
No 1 shall now substitute CTS No. 699 in place of CTS No. 611 in the
Notification dated 09.02.1973 and Respondent No. 2 shall substitute
CTS No. 699 in place of CTS No. 611 in the Award dated 14.06.1975
and it be so read. The Respondent No. 3 shall delete Entry dated
22.07.1997 from the Revenue Records including the Property Register
Card in respect of CTS No. 611 of Village Malad (East), Taluka Malad,
District Mumbai Suburban. The directions issued above shall be
complied within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of
the order.
17. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….10