FAZLEABBAS GULAMHUSEN SAIYED vs KANUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI RAWAL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17971 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17971 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
FAZLEABBAS GULAMHUSEN SAIYED
Versus
KANUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI RAWAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YUSUFKHAN PATHAN(3799) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 9
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1,8,9
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5,6,7
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 23/10/2026
JUDGMENT
Order in Civil Application No. 1 of 2026:
1. The present Civil Application has been filed for bringing the
legal heirs of deceased – respondent No. 3, Dahyaji Motiji Rathod,
on record by condoning the delay of 3897 days caused in filing the
present application. Copy of death certificate is produced on
record.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Yusufkhan Pathan for the applicant,
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
submitted that the heirs of the deceased are required to be brought
on record. The petition would be rendered futile if the heirs of the
deceased – respondent No. 3 are not brought on record by
condoning the delay of 3897 days caused in filing the present
application.
3. In view of the averments made in the application and having
considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the
applicant, the heirs of the deceased – respondent No. 3 are found
to be necessary parties. Hence, the present application deserves
to be allowed by condoning the delay of 3897 days in filing the
present application, and the same is hereby allowed. Necessary
amendment to be carried out forthwith.
Order in Special Civil Application No. 17971 of 2017:
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioner praying for the
following reliefs:
“(A) This Petition may kindly be admitted;
(B) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction for quashing and setting aside the Order
dated 30-04-2015 passed by Respondent No.8 in
CON Case No. 59/2010 (Annexure-H) as confirmed
by Order dated 09-08-2016 passed by Respondent
No.9 in Revision Application No. MVV / CON /KHD
/23 /2015 (Annexure-I);
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
(C) Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the
Respondents to restore actual physical possession of
land of Survey No.514 situated in Village Sansoli,
Taluka Mahemdabad, District Kheda to the Petitioner
forthwith;
(D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of
this Petition, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
stay the operation, implementation and execution of
Orders dated 30-04-2015 passed by Respondent
No.8 in CON Case No. 59/2010 (Annexure-H) as
confirmed by Order dated 09-08-2016 passed by
Respondent No.9 in Revision Application No. MVV /
CON / KHD /23 / 2015 (Annexure-I)
(E) Any other and further relief as the Honourable
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may please be granted to
the Petitioner;”
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara
waives service of Notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent
No. 9.
Heard learned advocate Mr. Yusufkhan Pathan for the
petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for respondent No.9.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The Agricultural land bearing Survey No. 514
admeasuring 0-15-18 Hec-Are-Sq.mtrs. situated at Village –
Sansoli, Taluka – Mahemdabad, District – Kheda, originally
belonged to respondent Nos. 3 to 7. The said land was
purchased by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by way of a
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
registered sale deed dated 20.11.2007. The entry with
respect to the registered sale deed came to be mutated in
the revenue records by way of Entry No. 1350. The said
entry came to be cancelled on 31.03.2008. Thereafter, a new
revenue entry No. 1598 came to be registered in the revenue
record in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said entry
came to be certified on 18.12.2009. Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 sold the said land to the petitioner by way of a registered
sale deed dated 18.05.2010. The entry with respect to the
registered sale deed came to be mutated in the revenue
records by way of Entry No. 1745 which came to be
cancelled on 15.09.2011. Thereafter, a new entry No. 2004
came to be entered in the revenue record which came to be
certified on 03.04.2012. Respondent No. 8 filed suo motu
Revision under Section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 with
respect to the sale transaction between respondent Nos. 1
and 2 and respondent Nos. 3 and 7 wherein, no notice was
issued to the petitioner and learned Prant Officer, Kheda, by
an order dated 30.04.2015, held the sale transaction to be
illegal. Being aggreived and dissatisfied with the same, the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
petitioner approached the learned SSRD by way of Revision
Application who, by an order dated 09.08.2016, dismissed
the Revision Application and confirmed the order of the
learned Prant Officer, Kheda.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order,
the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner, at the outset, has placed
reliance upon the Government Ordinance No. 2/2026 passed by
the Revenue Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, dated
14.07.2026 and contended that by amending Section 9 of the
Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act” ), any
transfer or partition of a land contrary to the provisions of the Act
made on or after 29.01.1948 but on or before 31.03.2026 shall be
deemed to have been regularized without charging any penalties
or premium and all pending proceedings before any authority shall
abate. It is contended by learned advocate for the petitioner that in
the present case, cancellation of mutation entry is on the ground
that the sale of the land in question resulted in fragmentation of the
block without obtaining prior permission of the learned Collector as
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
contemplated under the Act. It is therefore, submitted that in view
of aforesaid amendment in the Act, the present petition deserves
to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated
09.08.2016 passed by the learned SSRD in Revision Application
No.MVV/CON/KHD/23/2015 as well as order dated 30.04.2015
passed by the learned Prant Officer, Kheda. Except above, no
other submissions were made by learned advocate for the
petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara for respondent
No. 9 could not contradict the aforesaid facts and contended that
Sub-Section(4) has been added in Section 9 of the Act. Except
above, no other submissions were made by learned AGP for
respondent No. 1.
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the parties and upon perusal of the papers placed
on record, it appears that the challenge in the present petition is
against the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned SSRD
whereby the Revision Application filed by the petitioner came to be
rejected by confirming the order dated 30.04.2015 passed by the
learned Prant Officer, Kheda. The petitioner, having a registered
sale deed dated 18.05.2010 in respect of the land in question, had
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
the sale deed entry mutated in the revenue records vide Entry No.
2004. The entry came to be rejected by the learned Prant Officer,
Kheda vide order dated 30.04.2015. Learned SSRD also affirmed
the finding of learned Prant Officer, Kheda and rejected the
Revision Application of petitioner.
7. Sub-section(4) has been inserted in Section 9 of the Act.
Sub-section (4) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:
"(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. The provision mandates that any transfer of land which was
contrary to the provisions of the Act made on or after 29.01.1948
but on or before 31.03.2026 shall be deemed to have been
regularized without charging any penalties or premium and all
pending proceedings before any Officer or Authority in respect of a
transfer shall stand abated. In view of aforesaid provision of law,
the sale deed is indisputably falling within the aforesaid two dates
of 29.01.1948 and 31.03.2026. Therefore, the transfer of land is
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026
C/SCA/17971/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240531242017)
deemed to have been regularized without charging any penalties
or premium.
9. It also appears from the record that no proceedings are
pending before any authority dealing with the question of breach of
provisions of the Act, and therefore, the question of abatement of
such proceedings do not arise in the present case. In the present
case, the entry of sale deed was cancelled on the ground of the
sale being violative of the provisions of the Act as there was no
prior permission obtained by the private parties before entering
into a transaction of sale.
10. In view of the aforesaid amended provision, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed.
The order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the learned SSRD in
Revision Application No.MVV/CON/KHD/23/2015 as well as order
dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Prant Officer, Kheda are,
hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:38 IST 2026