MALAD ASHWIN CO OP HSG SOC LTDversusCOMPETENT AUTHORITY DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR CO OP SOC AND OR

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. Ltd3.




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    Area recorded on Area proposed by Reason for
                         No.            the Property Card the City Survey     discrepancy
                                        (sq.m.)           Officer, Malad vide
                                                          Mo.R.No.22/2025
                                                          (sq.m.)

                1              2                  3                 4                 5

          Malad (U),     633            1169.40           2442.10              Error in
          Borivali                                                             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.



NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Digitally signed by
NEETA SHAILESH
SAWANT
                                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Date: 2026.09.07
16:51:02 +0530




                      _____________________________________________________________________________

                                                      PAGE NOS. 7 of 7
                                                    Thursday, 3 September 2026