In Brief
The Supreme Court held that landowners cannot be divested of their property based on a clerical mistake corrected by an informal handwritten corrigendum. The appellants owned plot numbers 36 to 43, but the government mistakenly notified plot numbers 1 to 16 as surplus land. The government later attempted to correct this through an unpublished, unauthorized handwritten corrigendum and claimed possession. The Court ruled that the mandatory statutory procedure under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 must be strictly followed. Without proper notification, notice to owners, or evidence of valid dispossession before the Act's repeal in 1999, owners retain their land and are entitled to the protection of the repeal legislation."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.