Town planning records may be corrected for mistaken ownership entries where no lawful acquisition or transfer of private land occurred.

A town planning record cannot be corrected by treating a private internal road as vested in a municipal corporation where the scheme records, award and correspondence show continued private ownership and no lawful acquisition or transfer. Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 permits correction of errors, irregularities and informalities so long as the variation is not substantial, and correcting a mistaken ownership entry is not a substantial alteration. Reading Sections 88, 91, 125 and 126 together, the statutory scheme does not allow deprivation of property without authority of law and compensation, and the authority must amend the records to reflect the true title.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State and the Planning Authority were justified in refusing to correct the town planning records and in treating the internal road as vested in the municipal corporation, and whether the proposed correction was barred as a substantial variation under the town planning scheme.

Analysis: The scheme records, the arbitrator's award, and the surrounding municipal correspondence showed that the disputed strip had always been reflected as private land held with the adjoining plot owners and had never been acquired by the municipal corporation. Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 permits variation where the scheme suffers from error, irregularity or informality and the variation is not substantial. The Court held that correcting a mistaken entry to reflect the true owner was not a substantial alteration, and that Section 88 could not be read in isolation to create vesting where no lawful acquisition or lawful transfer had taken place. Reading Sections 88, 91, 125 and 126 together, the statutory scheme did not permit deprivation of property without authority of law and compensation. The authorities therefore had a public duty to amend the scheme records in conformity with the award and the property records.

Conclusion: The refusal to modify the scheme was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the Appellant, and the records were directed to be corrected to delete the municipal corporation's name as owner of the private road.

---