KIRTIBHAI S/O ISHWARBHAI PATEL vs STATE OF GUJARAT

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23010 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
KIRTIBHAI S/O ISHWARBHAI PATEL & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. RAJAN J PATEL(6775) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
N J MEVADA(9058) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 10,11,12,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, as well as under the provisions of the
Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947 (for short "Fragmentation Act"), the
petitioners, being the legal heirs of late Ishwarbhai Prabhudas
Patel, have challenged the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by
the respondent – Additional Secretary, Revenue Department
(Appeals) (SSRD) in Revision Application
No.MVV/CON/MSN/1/2018, as well as the order dated
01.03.2018 passed by the respondent – Prant Officer (Deputy
Collector), Mahesana in Land Fragmentation/Block Breach Case
No. 2 of 2016. The petitioners have thereby prayed that the
sales in favour of their predecessor, and the Mutation Entries
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
made in respect thereof, be restored in their favour.
2. Briefly stated that, the land bearing Block No.98 of Moje
Kherva, Taluka and District Mahesana, admeasuring Hect. 1-99-
78 Sq. Mtrs., came into existence upon consolidation of old
Survey Nos. 83/1, 84/4 paiki, 83 paiki, 84/2, 85/2, 86 and 87.
2.1 By registered Sale Deed No.3043 dated 22.05.2003
(shown in certain revenue entries as 23.05.2003), the
respondent Nos. 2 to 9 (original owners) sold Hect. 0-40-00 Sq.
Mtrs. out of the said block to late Ishwarbhai Prabhudas Patel for
a consideration of Rs. 82,000/-. The said sale was mutated vide
Entry No. 11752 dated 25.07.2014, certified on 20.10.2014.
2.2 By registered Sale Deed No. 2344 dated 12.04.2004, the
respondent Nos. 2 to 9 sold a further Hect. 1-35-78 Sq. Mtrs. out
of the said block to late Ishwarbhai Prabhudas Patel for a
consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. The said sale was mutated vide
Entry No. 7560 dated 25.04.2004, certified on 03.07.2004.
2.3 On the proposal of the Mamlatdar, Mahesana dated
15.02.2016, Land Fragmentation/Block Breach Case No. 2 of
2016 came to be initiated. By the order dated 01.03.2018, the
Prant Officer, Mahesana held that the block had been divided
and sold without the prior permission of the competent
authority in breach of Section 31(1)(b) of the Fragmentation Act.
The Prant Officer accordingly declared the transfers void under
Section 9(1) of the Act, imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- under
Section 9(2), and directed the Mamlatdar to take summary
action under Section 9(3) of the Act.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
2.4 Being aggrieved, late Ishwarbhai Prabhudas Patel
preferred a revision before the SSRD. During its pendency, he
expired on 18.04.2018 and the petitioners were brought on
record. By the order dated 07.07.2018, the SSRD rejected the
revision.
2.5 Pursuant to the said orders, Entry No. 13132 dated
21.07.2018 and Entry No. 13252 dated 30.10.2018 came to be
made in the revenue record. Pursuant to the re-survey and
promulgation (Entry No. 13013), the land in question now bears
new Survey No. 1890, admeasuring Hect. 0-56-43 Sq. Mtrs., and
new Survey No. 1892, admeasuring Hect. 1-25-41 Sq. Mtrs. (as
corrected vide Entry No. 15439 dated 02.01.2023). Hence, the
present petition.
3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned AGP
for the respondent State drew the attention of this Court to the
Notification dated 14.07.2026 issued by the Revenue
Department, whereby, by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, the
provisions of the Fragmentation Act have been amended.
Learned AGP submitted that, in view of the said amendment in
Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act, a transfer or partition of a
land contrary to the provisions of the Fragmentation Act made
th st
on or after 29 January, 1948 but on or before 31 March, 2026
shall be deemed to have been regularized without charging any
penalties or premium therefor. Learned AGP further submitted
that, considering the facts of the case, the matter may be
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
remanded to the authority concerned so that an appropriate
decision can be taken as to whether the present case would fall
within the ambit of the said amendment or not.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Rajan J. Patel for the petitioners
referred to the documents available on record, including Entry
Nos.7560 and 11752, and submitted the following:
5.1 As noted in paras 2.2 and 2.3 above, the sale deeds in
favour of the predecessor of the petitioners were executed on
22.05.2003 and 12.04.2004. The time duration mentioned in
the aforesaid amendment is therefore squarely applicable to the
facts of the present case.
5.2 As noted in para 2.4 above, the only ground on which the
transfers were declared void is the absence of prior permission
under Section 31 of the Fragmentation Act, which is precisely
the contravention that has now been regularized by the
legislature. The said has since been replaced by the Gujarat
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 2026, which is deemed to have come into
force on 14.07.2026. By the said Amendment, the regularization
is made applicable whether or not any proceeding is pending,
and the actions taken under the Ordinance have been saved.
5.3 Remanding the matter to the authority concerned to
decide afresh would not serve the purpose of the said
amendment and would, in fact, be against its object.
5.4 As noted in para 2.6 above, the impugned orders have
already been given effect to in the revenue record vide Entry
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
Nos. 13132 and 13252, and the land has since been re-
surveyed. Unless a consequential direction is issued, the
petitioners will have to move from pillar to post again.
5.5 Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court dated
06.08.2026 in Special Civil Application No. 14666 of 2016
(Amrutbhai Dalabhai Ilasariya v. State of Gujarat, paras 9 to 11),
and on the decisions in Special Civil Application No. 16801 of
2014 (Kishorbhai Vitthalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, decided
on 17.09.2026, paras 8 and 9), Special Civil Application No.
13127 of 2017 (Sabnurbanu D/o Rasulkhan Aamirkhan Pathan v.
State of Gujarat, decided on 22.09.2026, paras 8 to 10) and
Special Civil Application No. 19004 of 2017 (Rajnikant
Shambhubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, decided on 24.09.2026,
paras 9 to 11).
6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties
and having gone through the material available on record,
including the amendment placed on record, it emerges that by
the aforesaid amendment, the provisions of the Fragmentation
Act have been amended, whereby a transaction which has
taken place in contravention of the provisions of the
Fragmentation Act on or after 29th January, 1948 but on or
before 31st March, 2026 is deemed to have been regularized,
and the proceedings initiated against such transaction cannot
survive.
7. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the Notification
dated 14.07.2026 whereby, sub-section (4) has been added to
Section 5, and sub-section (4) to Section 9, of the
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
Fragmentation Act. They read as under:
"Amendment of Section 5 of Bom. LXII of 1947.-
In the principal Act, in section 5, after sub-section (3), the following
sub-section shall be added, namely:-
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 or foregoing sub-
sections, the State Government may from time to time, by notification
in the Official Gazette, declare a standard area for any class of land in
any local area."
"Amendment of section 9 of Bom. LXII of 1947.-
In the principal Act, in section 9, after sub-section (3), the following
sub-section shall be added, namely:-
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a transfer or
partition of a land contrary to the provisions of this Act made on or
after the 29th January, 1948 but on or before 31st March, 2026 shall be
deemed to have been regularised without charging any penalties or
premium therefor and all pending proceedings before any officer or
authority in respect of the aforesaid transfer or partition shall abate."
8. Thus, in view of the above, and more particularly sub-
section (4) of Section 9 reproduced in para 8 above, a transfer
or partition of a land contrary to the provisions of the
th
Fragmentation Act made on or after 29 January, 1948 but on or
st
before 31 March, 2026 is deemed to have been regularized
without charging any penalties or premium therefor and all
pending proceedings before any officer or authority in respect
of the aforesaid transfer or partition shall abate.
9. Considering the Notification, as referred to herein above,
the submission made by the learned AGP with regard to remand
the matter back to the Authority, does not weigh with this
Court.
9.1 In the present case, it is an admitted position of fact that
the transactions against which the proceedings were initiated
are registered and bona fide transactions, and that they stood
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
mutated in the revenue record vide Entry Nos. 7560 and 11752.
The only ground on which they were declared void is the want
of prior permission under Section 31 of the Fragmentation Act. It
also appears from the record that the original land owners, i.e.
respondent Nos. 2 to 9, have already received the sale
consideration from the predecessor of the petitioners, and there
is no dispute about the same. Having received the
consideration, they cannot have any locus to say anything in
the revenue proceedings; however, if they are aggrieved, they
can avail the appropriate remedy available under the law.
Further, though served, the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have not
appeared before this Court and have not opposed the petition.
Despite this, the petitioners have been moving from pillar to
post since the year 2016.
10. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Peter
Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, reported in 2025 INSC 771 . In that
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that a matter should
not be remanded if there is no useful purpose in doing so, and
that remand is not a routine measure. Here, in the present case,
the issue has been crystallised by the State by the aforesaid
amendment. The dates of the transactions are admitted and
nothing remains to be decided by the authority. If the matter is
remanded for no reason, it would create multiplicity of
proceedings, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is
not the aim and object of the amendment. This Court, in Special
Civil Application No. 14666 of 2016, decided on 06.08.2026
(paras 9 and 10), has taken the same view. In Special Civil
Application No. 16801 of 2014 (paras 8 and 9), Special Civil
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026

C/SCA/23010/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240599822019)
Application No. 13127 of 2017 (paras 8 to 10) and Special Civil
Application No. 19004 of 2017 (paras 9 to 11), this Court has, in
identical cases of sale of a portion of a block without prior
permission, quashed the orders of the revenue authorities in the
light of Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act. The request for
remand is therefore not accepted.
11. In the circumstances, and for the reasons recorded in
paras 10 to 13 above, the present petition stands allowed. In
view of the amended provision of Section 9(4) of the
Fragmentation Act dated 14.07.2026, the transfers made by
registered Sale Deed No. 3043 dated 22.05.2003 (also shown as
23.05.2003) and registered Sale Deed No. 2344 dated
12.04.2004, in respect of the land of old Block No. 98 of Moje
Kherva, Taluka and District Mahesana (now new Survey Nos.
1890 and 1892), are deemed to have been regularized. The
proceedings initiated in respect thereof stand abated.
11.1 The present petition stands allowed. In view of the
amended provision under section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act,
dated 14.07.2026 in the Fragmentation Act, the proceedings
shall stand abated and the order impugned are quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 18:41:32 IST 2026