ANUMIYA MOHMEDMIYA MALEK vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4089 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANUMIYA MOHMEDMIYA MALEK
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MRUGEN K PUROHIT(1224) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS. HIMANI SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 30/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1) By filing present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 27.11.2015 passed by the respondent – SSRD in Revision
Application No. SABAR/1-A/2013 as well as the order dated
18.12.2011 passed by the respondent – Deputy Collector and
thereby prayed for declaration that the initiation of the
proceedings by the respondent – Deputy Collector for the breach
of the provision of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
“Fragmentation Act” for short) is without jurisdiction.
2) Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
3) However when the matter has taken up for hearing, learned
AGP has tendered copy of Notification dated 14.07.2026 issued
by the Revenue Department, which is taken on record, whereby
by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, an amendment has been
made by amending statutory provisions of law in the provision of
the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Fragmentation
Act” for short). She, therefore, submitted that in view of the said
amendment in Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act, a transfer
and/or partition of a land contrary to the provision of the
th
Fragmentation Act made on or after 29 January, 1948 but on or
st
before 21 March, 2026 shall be 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 stand abated.
She, therefore, submitted that in such cases, there are only
Government authorities, who are contesting the matters and in
some cases, the original land owners are also before this Court,
therefore considering the facts of the case, the matters may be
remanded before the authority concerned so that appropriate
decision can be taken as to whether the present case would fall
under the said Notification or not.
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
4) On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Kuldip Acharya
appearing for learned advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit for the
petitioner referred to the documents available on record
including the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners and
submitted that the sale deed is executed on 20.07.2009,
therefore, the time duration mentioned in the aforesaid
amendment would squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the facts of the
case, the proceedings require to be declared as abated. He
further submitted that in fact, remanding the matter back to the
authority concerned to decide afresh would not serve the
purpose of said Notification published by the State Government
and in fact, it can be said to be against the object of said
Notification. He, therefore, submitted that considering the object
behind publication of such Notification, the present petition may
be allowed by declaring the proceedings initiated by the
authority under the said provision as abated.
5) Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties
and having gone through the material and available on record
including the amendment, which has been placed on record by
learned AGP during the course of hearing, it appears that by the
aforesaid Notification, amendment has been made in the
provision of the Fragmentation Act, whereby it is decided to
abate the proceedings initiated against the transaction which has
taken place in contravention of the provision of the
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
th
Fragmentation Act i.e. on or after 29 January, 1948 but on or
st
before 21 March, 2026.
6) I have considered the provision of the Fragmentation Act
and found out that the said provision, which has been enacted for
more than seven decades, was enacted with a sole intent to
prevent fragmentation of an agricultural land holdings and
providing for consolidation thereof, with a view to securing
agricultural efficiency and ensuring orderly management of
agricultural land. However with the passage of time during all
these years after the enactment of the said provision, substantial
changes have taken place in the socio-economic conditions of the
State, patterns of land use and agricultural practices and
considering the said set of facts and the developments, the State
Government has thought it fit to amend the said provision to
ensure that its objectives are achieved in a manner consistent
with present-day requirements. Not only that, from time to time,
there is expansion of of urban and municipal areas, as a result of
which, agricultural lands situated in such areas and their
periphery have been included in residential, commercial and
industrial zones under development Plans, rendering such lands
eligible and more suitable for non-agricultural use and because
of statutory restrictions, the person concerned/ occupant is
prevented from obtaining requisite permission for
commencement of non-agricultural use. Therefore with a sole
intent to resolve the said issue, the State Government, by the
said Notification, has amended the sections 5 and 9 of the Act
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
with a view to meet current socio-economic and to resolve these
long-standing issues by regularising violations and updating the
law to reflect current land-use realities as also to balance
agricultural interests with developmental needs of the State.
7) It is found out from the said Notification that by the said
Notification, sub-section (3) of Section 5 and sub-section (3) of
Section 9 have been inserted, which 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, more particularly, from sub-
section (3) of Section 9, it appears that a transfer or partition of a
land contrary to the provision of the Fragmentation Act made on
th st
or after 29 January, 1948 but on or before 31 March, 2026 shall
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
be 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) However at this stage, submission made by learned AGP
with regard to remanding the matter back before the authority
concerned is required to be considered. Here in the present case,
it is an admitted position of fact that the transaction, against
which the proceedings have been initiated, is a bonafide
transaction and despite which, the petitioner is moving pillar to
post. Not only that, it appears from the record that the original
land owners have already pocketed the amount from the
petitioner and/or purchaser and there is no dispute about the
same, therefore after having pocketed amount, he cannot have
any locus to say anything in the revenue proceedings, however if
he is aggrieved, in that event, he can avail appropriate remedy
available under the law.
10) At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Peter
Augustine Vs. K.V. Xavier , reported in 2025 INSC 771 , wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that an appellate court
should not remand a matter if there is no useful purpose to do
so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that remand
should be exercised within specific legal contours to avoid
unwarranted prolongation of litigation. In the said decision, the
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that remand is not a
routine measure but a tool to ensure justice when the case's
facts or evidence necessitate further proceedings. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has also cautioned against remanding solely to
re-evaluate issues already decided if no new issues are framed or
if the remand is unwarranted. Here in the present case, the issue
has been crystallized by the State Government by issuing
Notification, whereby it is decided to abate the proceedings
initiated against the transaction which has taken place in
contravention of the provision of the Fragmentation Act,
therefore, if the matter is remanded for no reason, in that event,
it would create multiplicity of proceedings and in my considered
opinion, it is not the aim and object of the State Government at
the time of issuance of said Notification. It is also found out from
the said Notification that the State Government has stated in a
very categorical terms that pending proceedings before any
officer or authority in respect of the aforesaid transfer or
partition shall abate. Therefore having considered the facts of
the present case coupled with the aforesaid amendment, it is an
admitted position of fact that the transaction in question in the
present case has taken place between the aforesaid period as
fixed by the State Government, therefore, the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner for the transaction in
contravention of the provision of the Fragmentation Act
deserves to be abated.
11) In the circumstances, the present petition stands allowed .
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026
C/SCA/4089/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
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 orders impugned are
hereby quashed and set aside.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
GARVITA
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by GARVITA KACHHWAHA(HC02358) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 18:12:41 IST 2026