Case No.
Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2018 with Chamber Summons No. 304 of 2018, Chamber Summons (L) No. 341 of 2018, and Interim Application No. 99 of 2020
Bench
G. S. Kulkarni J. and Rajesh S. Patil J.
Acts & Sections
Land Acquisition Act §6
Land Acquisition Act §11
Maharashtra Regional §126(2)
Maharashtra Regional §126(4)
Constitution §226
Right to Fair Compen §1
Headnote
AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed
The petitioners, heirs of late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, challenged the legality of a Corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer purporting to include their land (Survey No. 247 Pt. No. 3, CTS 913 part, admeasuring 3 acres 5½ gunthas at Kurla, Mumbai) within the scope of a Land Acquisition Award dated 23 September 1986, some 31 years after the original award was declared under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners contended that their land was not lawfully included in the acquisition proceedings initiated by Section 6 notification dated 21 October 1982 for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road, and that no valid award had ever been passed in respect of their land so as to offer compensation.
The central question before the Bombay High Court was whether a corrigendum to a land acquisition award could be validly issued after a delay of 31 years so as to retrospectively include lands that had been omitted from the original award, and whether such action was legally sustainable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitioners argued that the omission of their land from the original award was an admitted lapse on the part of the acquisition machinery, and that the impugned corrigendum was an attempt to foist a stale award upon them without following a lawful procedure.
The Court noted with concern that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had acted in a manner that compelled the landowners to litigate for over 15 years, and that the case illustrated the unpredictable and irregular functioning of government land acquisition machinery notwithstanding a settled legal framework. The judgment examined the procedural and substantive requirements of land acquisition law and the limits of the power to issue corrigenda to awards after inordinate delay.
Catchwords:
Land Acquisition Act 1894
corrigendum to award
belated correction
Section 6 notification
public purpose
Santacruz-Chembur Link Road
MMRDA
eminent domain
omission from award
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966
Article 226
writ jurisdiction
compensation
landowner rights
award validity
inordinate delay
© LegalFirms.in — Headnote is proprietary. Raw judgment text is in the public domain
per Section 52(1)(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Full Judgment Text
```json
{
"title": "Zarina Dada And 3 Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors",
"case_number": "Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2018 with Chamber Summons No. 304 of 2018, Chamber Summons (L) No. 341 of 2018, and Interim Application No. 99 of 2020",
"side": "civil",
"date_of_judgment": "2026-07-13",
"bench": "G. S. Kulkarni J. and Rajesh S. Patil J.",
"reportable": false,
"parties_petitioner": "Zarina Dada, Saadia Maqdoom Moosa, Nasreen Saleh Salim, Farah Dada",
"parties_respondent": "The State of Maharashtra, The Collector Mumbai Suburban District, The Deputy Collector (Land Acquis
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
From ₹167/month.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
