LABHUBHAI LALLUBHAI BELADIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9935 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
LABHUBHAI LALLUBHAI BELADIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JM BAROT(143) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
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
15.10.2012 passed by the respondent – SSRD in
Revision Application No.MVV/CON/BVN/02/2010 by
which the revision application of the petitioner
has been dismissed by confirming the order dated
29.11.2009 passed by the respondent – Deputy
Collector in RTS Case No.305 of 2009 and thereby
prayed to declare that there is no breach of the
provision of the Gujarat Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
1947 (hereinafter referred to as “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 a copy of
Notification dated 14.07.2026 issued by the
Revenue Department, whereby, an amendment has
been made in the statute. He 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,
st
1948 but on or 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. He, 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.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
petitioner referred to the documents available
on record and submitted that the sale deed is
executed on 22.12.1980, 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
are required to be declared as abated. He
further submitted that in fact, remanding the
matter back to the authority concerned to decide
it 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 materials
placed on record including the Notification,
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
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
th
the Fragmentation Act i.e. on or after 29
st
January, 1948 but on or 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/
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
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 with a view to meet current socio-
economic and to resolve these long-standing
issues by regularizing 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
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
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
th
on or after 29 January, 1948 but on or before
st
31 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 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 that, 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 the amount
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
of sale consideration, he/she cannot have any
locus to say anything in the revenue
proceedings. However, if the said person is
aggrieved, in that event, he/she 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 the 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 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,
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026
C/SCA/9935/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
if the matter is remanded for no reason, in that
event, it would create multiplicity of
proceedings and in my considered view, it is not
the aim and object of the State Government at
the time of issuing the 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 during the period specified
in the said Notification and therefore, the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner for
contravention of the provision of the
Fragmentation Act, deserve to be abated.
11. In the circumstances, the present petition
stands allowed. In view of the amended provision
of 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)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Jul 31 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 31 13:11:19 IST 2026