Ramanlal Nathmal Jain and Ors. vs Lumbini Co. Op. Housing Society Thr. Its Chairman/Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ramanlal Nathmal Jain and Ors. vs Lumbini Co. Op. Housing Society Thr. Its Chairman/Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in the above terms: the corrigendum and the modified portion of the Competent Authority's order, together with the dependent certificate issued under Section 11(5), are set aside; the respondent society is given liberty to challenge the original order dated 7 March 2022 through proper legal proceedings before the appropriate forum; all parties remain free to pursue remedies available to them in law; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Competent Authority had jurisdiction, by way of corrigendum, to alter the area stated in its earlier order from 566.94 sq. mtrs. to 828.24 sq. mtrs., such alteration amounting to a substantive review/re-determination beyond the powers conferred by Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. +1 more

Court's answer

The corrigendum substituting 566.94 sq. mtrs. with 828.24 sq. mtrs. is clearly not a minor or clerical correction; it changes the extent of the land and therefore affects rights, obligations and possibly entitlement of parties.

Ratio / Principle

The corrigendum exercise amounts to a re-determination of an issue already decided and is beyond the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority, consistent with the settled legal position in Kashish Park Reality relied upon by this Court.

Key takeaways

To the extent of the corrigendum-induced modification, the impugned order of the Competent Authority is set aside; the merits of the original order dated 7 March 2022 are not examined, and the respondent society is given liberty to challenge that original order by adopting proper legal proceedings before the appropriate forum.ratio¶18
This Court confined itself to the limited question of the Competent Authority's jurisdiction to issue the corrigendum; all other issues were expressly kept open, with all parties left free to take recourse to remedies available to them in law.obiter¶23
Since the certificate under Section 11(5) was dependent upon the validity of the modified order, once that foundation is removed the superstructure cannot continue: both the order of modification and the certificate issued pursuant to it are liable to be set aside.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Amit Borkar J — Writ Petition No.17319 of 2025, decided 6 April 2026: A corrigendum issued by the Competent Authority enlarging the area stated in its earlier order from 566.94 sq. mtrs. to 828.24 sq. mtrs. was held not to be a small or clerical change: it alters the very extent of the property, affects rights, obligations and possibly entitlement of parties, and amounts to re-determination of an already-decided issue beyond the authority's jurisdiction. Relying on its own earlier decision in Kashish Park Reality Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 3 Mah LJ 778 — per which an authority exercising power under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act becomes functus officio and possesses no substantive review power, clerical correction alone being permitted — the Court declared the legal position settled and binding. Accordingly, the impugned modification was set aside to that extent, and the certificate issued under Section 11(5) of the Act on the basis of the modified area — being dependent upon the validity of the order ('once the foundation itself is removed, the superstructure cannot continue') — was likewise held liable to be set aside. The merits of the original order dated 7 March 2022 were expressly not examined, the respondent society being given liberty to challenge it through proper legal proceedings before the appropriate forum; all other issues were kept open. Petition disposed of in the above terms; no order as to costs.

32-17319 OF 2025.doc

Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.17319 OF 2025

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR SHABNOOR AYUB AYUB PATHAN PATHAN Date: 2026.04.06 17:29:28 +0530

Ramanlal Nathmal Jain & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Lumbini Cooperative Housing Society Through Its Chairman & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Dadhiechi S. Mhaispurkar, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat i/b Raj Legal, for Respondent No.1.

Ms. M. S. Shrivastava, AGP, for the State – Respondent No.7 and 9.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : APRIL 6, 2026

P.C.:

The present petition is arising from an order made by the Competent Authority, where by way of corrigendum, the area earlier mentioned has been changed. Earlier the area was stated as 566.94 sq. mtrs., but now by such corrigendum it is shown as 828.24 sq. mtrs. This change is not small or clerical in nature. It is changing the very extent of the property which is subject matter of the order. The petitioner is therefore saying that such change is not mere correction of typing mistake or calculation mistake, but it is altering the substance of the original decision. When authority passes an order, it is expected that all relevant material is considered at that time itself. If later on such major change is made, it creates doubt whether the authority is indirectly

1

32-17319 OF 2025.doc

reviewing its own order without following due process.

This Court has already considered similar issue in the case of Kashish Park Reality Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 3 Mah LJ 778. In that judgment it is clearly observed that once the Competent Authority exercises power under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, it becomes functus officio to that extent. It cannot again reopen the matter and make substantial changes in the order. The law makes distinction between clerical correction and substantive review. Clerical correction is allowed to remove accidental errors. But where the change goes to root of the matter and affects rights of parties, it becomes review in substance. Such review power is not given under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the authority cannot do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly. This legal position is already settled and binding.

In light of the above legal position, the impugned action of the Competent Authority cannot be accepted. The substitution of area from 566.94 sq. mtrs. to 828.24 sq. mtrs. is clearly not a minor correction. It changes the extent of land and therefore affects rights, obligations, and possibly entitlement of parties. Such exercise amounts to re-determination of the issue which was already decided. As held in the above judgment, such exercise is beyond jurisdiction of the Competent Authority. Hence, to that extent, the impugned order is required to be set aside. At the same time, it is necessary to clarify that this Court is not examining correctness of the original order dated 7 March 2022 on merits. Therefore, the respondent society is given liberty to challenge that

2

32-17319 OF 2025.doc

original order by adopting proper legal proceedings before appropriate forum.

As a consequence of setting aside the corrigendum and the modified part of the order, the certificate which has been issued under Section 11(5) of the Act on the basis of such modified area also cannot stand. The certificate is dependent upon the validity of the order. Once the foundation itself is removed, the superstructure cannot continue. Therefore, both the order of modification and the certificate issued pursuant to it are liable to be set aside.

It is made clear that all parties shall be free to take recourse to such remedies as are available to them in law. This includes challenge to the original order or any other appropriate proceedings as may be advised. This Court has only examined the limited issue of jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue such corrigendum. All other issues are kept open.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

3