Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11425 OF 2026 Malad Ashwin Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner … : Versus : Competent Authority, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City-4 & Ors. .Respondents … Mr. Tushad Kakalia i b. Ms. Sukeshi Bhandari, / for the Petitioner. Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C : 1) By this petition, the Petitioner-society has challenged order dated 7 July 2026 passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (4), Mumbai and Competent Authority (Competent Authority) rejecting the application preferred by the Petitioner-society for issuance of a corrigendum for reflecting the area correction of conveyed land from 1169.40 sq.mts to 2442.10 sq.mts as per the Collectors order. Issuance ' of corrigendum was sought by the Petitioner-society since the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District has passed order dated 6 January 2026 _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 1 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx correcting the area of CTS No.633 from 1169.40 sq.mts to 2442.10 sq.mts after issuance of the certificate of deemed conveyance on 31 May 2019. The Competent Authority has however rejected the application on the ground of absence of jurisdiction to issue a corrigendum. 2) I have heard Mr.Kakalia, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for State. 3) It appears that in Application No.41 2019, despite issuance of / notices and after paper publications of notices, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are the promoter and land owner had not appeared. Therefore, no practical purpose would be served in issuing notices to Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are no longer traceable. Also considering the nature of order that is proposed to be passed, I am of the view that no real prejudice would be caused to Respondent Nos.3 and 4 by reason of non-issuance of notices to them. 4) The law is now fairly well settled that the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) does not confer power of review on the Competent Authority. Once the Competent Authority passes an order under Section 11 of MOFA, it becomes functus-officio. It cannot reopen the proceedings and make changes in the order of deemed conveyance by issuance of a corrigendum. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in Kashish Park Reality Private Limited & Anr. Versus. State of Maharashtra & Ors.1. The principle of 1 2020 SCC Online Bom 6418 _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 2 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx absence of power to issue a corrigendum is also recognised by this Court in Surya Corporation Versus. Competent Authority2 and Shree Pankaj Heights CHSL Versus. Devendra Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd 3 . 5) However, in the present case Petitioner-society need not seek substantive review of the order of the Competent Authority. The prayer for area correction does not involve adjudication of any issue, but the same envisages modifying the Certificate to bring the same in tune with the order subsequently passed by the Collector. While this Court has consistently recognised absence of power in the Competent Authority to issue a Corrigendum, power to correct inadvertent errors, accidental slip or omission is always legitimately considered. In Surya Corporation (supra), this Court has held that the Court may not interfere in a corrigendum which merely seeks to correct an obvious error in the Certificate to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In Kuber Kartik New Link Premises Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Versus. Sri Krishna Premises Co-op. Society Ltd. it is held that the power to correct clerical or arithmetical error that have crept in due to accidental slip or omission can legitimately be conceded to the Competent Authority. In the present case, the Competent Authority has conveyed entire CTS No. 633 in favour of the Petitioner-society vide order dated 24 May 2019. At the time when the order dated 24 May 2019 was passed, the area of CTS No.633 was 1169.40 sq.mts. On account of an obvious error, lesser area was recorded in CTS No.633. However, after passing of order dated 24 May 2019, the area of CTS No.633 has undergone change and by order dated 6 January 2026, the Collector has increased the area of CTS No.633 to 2442.10 2 2025 (2) Bom.C.R. 780 3 Writ Petition NO. 6008/2026 decided on 15 July 2026 _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx sq.mts. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant part of the Collector s’ order dated 6 January 2026 reads thus : On perusal of the original possession record (Vaslewar) attached to the case for Running Number 305 (Property No. 633), parcels 1 to 7 are recorded, and the total area has been fixed at 1328.6 sq.m. On perusal of the note-sketch and the original possession record for Running Number 305, it is noted that, on adding the areas under Sheet Numbers 32, 33 and 46, the area of Running Number 305 would be complete. However, in actual fact, only the area under Sheet No. 45 has been entered for Property No. 633, and the areas under Sheet Nos. 32, 33 and 46 have not been included therein. It is therefore likely that both a boundary correction and an area correction are required in respect of Property No. 633. As per the measurement under Expedited Boundary-Fixation Case No. / 22 2025, upon preparing a fresh, consolidated possession record in accordance / with the City Survey boundary of Property No. 633, the area worked out is fixed at 2442.10 sq.m., and this is the area proposed for correction. The area arrived at as a result of this measurement exceeds the area shown on the property card by +1272.70 sq.m. The correction of area of Property No. 633 does not result in any change in boundary, nor does it result in any change in the boundary area of the adjoining properties. / A proposal has been submitted, under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, for correction, in place of the erroneously recorded area of 1169.40 sq.m. on the property card of Property No. 633, City Survey, Malad (U), Taluka Borivali, to the area of 2442.10 sq.m., which is arrived at upon correction of the original city-survey error, seeking approval of the proposal and consequential implementation of the correction in the record. Under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, where a numerical clerical error or a measurement error is found, powers have been / conferred for correction of area boundary vide the Notification in the / Maharashtra Government Gazette, Extraordinary, Part-4, dated 7 September 2017. Conclusion : On the original property card of Property No. 633, City Survey, Malad (U), Taluka Borivali, an area of 1328.6 sq.m. is recorded, from which, after deducting 159.2 sq.m., the area comes to 1169.40 sq.m., tenure C. On perusal of the entry dated 27 04 1981, it is seen that, as per No. SB 663 6667 dated / / / / 01 01 1980 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and City Survey / / Officer No. 5, Mumbai Suburban, vide Order No. P.Bhu.1 Mo.R.No.736 81 / / dated 27 04 81, the area of 159.2 sq.m. which became part of the road for road / / _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 4 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx set-back road-widening purposes was deducted, and the area of Property No. / 633 was accordingly fixed at 1169.40 sq.m. Further, by the entry dated 30 05 2022, the name of the holder, namely Malad Ashwin Co-op. Housing / / Society Ltd., has been entered in respect of the area of 1169.40 sq.m. Order: Therefore, I, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, hereby order that, on the property card of the property mentioned below at City Survey, Malad (U), Taluka Borivali, the area entered in Column No. 3 be cancelled and the area mentioned in Column No. 4 be entered in its place. Further, in the measurement map of Expedited Boundary-Fixation Case No. / 22 2025, the boundary of Property No. 633, as newly corrected, shown by the / letters A, B, C, D, E, A, be corrected accordingly, and the record be brought up to date. Village Taluka / City Survey No. Area recorded on the Property Card (sq.m.) Area proposed by the City Survey Officer, Malad vide Mo.R.No.22 2025 / (sq.m.) Reason for discrepancy 1 2 3 4 5 Malad (U), Borivali 633 1169.40 2442.10 Error in survey measur / ement 6) Now that the area of CTS No.633 has been altered and increased to 2442.10 sq.mts, in my view, all that needs to be done by the Competent Authority is to merely reflect the correct area of the conveyed land in the Certificate dated 24 May 2019. No other party claims any rights in CTS No.633. This process does not involve a substantive review of findings recorded in the order dated 24 May 2019. In my view therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Competent Authority could have issued a corrigendum to the limited extent of correcting the area of land bearing CTS No.633 which is conveyed in favour of the Petitioner-society. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 5 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx 7) Mr. Kakalia has relied on judgment of this Court in Jaywant Ramchandra Keni Verus. The Competent Authority, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies4. The judgment cannot be construed to mean conferment of power of review or power of issuing corrigendum in favour of the Competent Authority in each and every case. It is only in a rare case where there an obvious error in the order qua description of the land such as Survey Number, CTS Number or where the area of the land already determined by the revenue authorities is to be corrected, a limited power of issuing corrigendum in the Competent Authority can be accepted. In my view, the present one is such a rare case where this Court would read the power of issuance of corrigendum in the Competent Authority for the limited purpose of reflecting the correct area of CTS No. 632 in the certificate of deemed conveyance dated 24 May 2019. As observed above, issuance of such corrigendum does not cause prejudice to any person. If the corrigendum is not issued, the same would lead to an incongruous situation where Petitioner-society would own land at CTS No.633 but erroneous area thereof would continue to be reflected in the Certificate of conveyance. 8) Accordingly, the petition succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order : (i)Order dated 7 July 2026 passed by the Competent Authority is set aside. (ii)The Competent Authority shall proceed to issue a Corrigendum to the Certificate dated 24 May 2019 reflecting correct area of CTS No.633 as 2442.10 sq.mts. 4 Writ Petition (L.)-8893-2023 decided on 19.1.2024 _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 6 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-11425-2026.docx (iii)Petitioner shall appear before the Competent Authority alongwith copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court on 10 September 2026 and apply for fixation of a date for issuance of corrigendum. (iv)The Competent Authority shall proceed to issue the corrigendum as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 months. (v) Upon corrigendum being issued, the concerned Sub-Registrar of Assurances shall permit registration of rectification deed to the deed of conveyance dated 31 March 2022. 9) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 7 of 7 Thursday, 3 September 2026 NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2026.09.07 16:51:02 +0530