### Correction of Land Acquisition Award Significant Years Later Without Statutory Jurisdiction is Illegal and Void AB Initio

The petitioners are heirs of Late Ahmad Dada, the registered owner of 1,613 sq. mtrs. of land in Kurla.

In 1982, the State notified several lands for acquisition for the "Santacruz-Chembur Link Road" under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act).

Despite being the registered owner, neither Late Dada nor the petitioners were served notices under Section 9(3) or 9(4); instead, notices were sent to third parties.

An award was declared on September 23, 1986, which omitted the petitioners’ names and Hissa numbers.

Possession of the land was taken unilaterally on April 7, 2005, without notice.

After decades of litigation and a failed Section 30 reference, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) issued a "Corrigendum" on April 5, 2017—31 years after the original award—to include the petitioners’ names under the guise of correcting a clerical error.

The Court applied Section 9 of the LA Act, which mandates notice to all persons interested, and Section 12(2), requiring immediate notice of the award.

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The Court relied on Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, which identified seven foundational sub-rights under Article 300A, including the right to notice and fair compensation.

Section 13-A of the LA Act was invoked to establish that clerical errors can only be corrected within six months of an award.

The Court also applied the principle of Actus Curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) regarding previous procedural ill-advice.

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: The Court applied the 'moulding of relief' doctrine from Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC to ensure realistic compensation for long-standing deprivation of property.

The Court reasoned that the 1894 Act is expropriatory and must be strictly construed.

The failure to issue Section 9 notices to the registered owners rendered the subsequent proceedings non-est.

An award is legally an "offer"; since no offer was made to the petitioners in 1986, their title was never lawfully divested.

The 2017 Corrigendum was held to be a "patent perversity" because Section 13-A limits the SLAO’s power to correct errors to a six-month window.

The Court found that attempting to "breathe life" into a 31-year-old dead award using 1982 valuations for a 2017 notice was a mockery of Article 300A.

While the 2013 Act was not applied for lapsing (as the acquisition was under the MRTP Act), the Court determined that the principles of fair compensation required a fresh valuation.

The Court held that the land had been taken without the authority of law.

The Respondents are directed to conduct a fresh exercise to determine compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but based on the current market value of the land, and to publish a fresh award within three months.

All other pending applications were disposed of.