Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). The land in question, Survey No. 247 Pt. No. 3, CTS 913 (part) admeasuring 3 Acres and 5 ½ Gunthas situated at Kurla, Mumbai, was owned by Late Dada and reflected in the revenue records. The acquisition was for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road under a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 126(2) & (4) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The original notification included only a portion of the petitioners’ land (1613 sq. meters) without specific mention. Despite the SLAO possessing the 7/12 extract showing Late Dada’s ownership, no notice under Section 9(3) and (4) was served on him; instead, notices were sent to non-owners. The award was passed without the petitioners’ participation, noting that the claimants had not filed claims. After Late Dada’s death, his father informed the SLAO by letter dated 8 March 1987, but no action was taken. Over three decades later, the SLAO issued a corrigendum on 5 April 2017 to include the petitioners’ land in the 1986 award. The petitioners contended that the corrigendum was illegal, the acquisition proceedings were vitiated, and the award was void ab initio. The State respondents defended the acquisition. The court observed that the SLAO’s actions defied legal principles, as a corrigendum after 31 years was impermissible and the failure to give notice rendered the acquisition proceedings non-est. The court allowed the petition and quashed the corrigendum and the award to the extent they pertained to the petitioners’ land, restoring their rights.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Award - Inclusion of Interested Parties - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 9, 11 - An award passed without notice to the landowner and without his participation is void and non-est; the SLAO's failure to issue notice under Section 9 to the recorded owner despite having revenue records constitutes a fatal procedural irregularity rendering the award invalid as against that landowner. (Paras 8-10) B) Land Acquisition - Corrigendum to Award - Scope and Limitation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - There is no statutory provision empowering the SLAO to issue a corrigendum to an award after an inordinate delay of 31 years; such action is ultra vires and cannot cure the initial illegality of non-inclusion of the landowner. (Paras 3) C) Land Acquisition - Notice to Persons Interested - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 9(3) and (4) - The requirement of issuing individual notices to landowners is mandatory; failure to do so, and instead issuing notice to a non-owner, vitiates the entire proceedings. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a corrigendum issued after 31 years from the passing of an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can validly include the petitioners’ land in the award, when the original award did not include their land and no notice was given to the landowners.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed; the corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 and the land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 to the extent they pertained to the petitioners' land were quashed and declared void ab initio.
Law Points
- Land acquisition award must include all interested parties
- corrigendum cannot be issued after unreasonable delay
- failure to issue notice under Section 9(3) and (4) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 vitiates award
- award without participation of landowner is void
