VAGHASIYA MONIKABEN GOPALBHAI vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2948 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI :
=======================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=======================================================
VAGHASIYA MONIKABEN GOPALBHAI & ANR.
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & ORS.
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS HIMANI SONI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2.1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 23/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By filing present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
has challenged the order dated 29.09.2015 passed
by the respondent – SSRD in Revision Application
No.MVV/KON/SBR/8/2012 as well as the order dated
19.09.2011 passed by the respondent – Deputy
Collector.
2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
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,
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. 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.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
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 11.01.2010, 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
th
Fragmentation Act i.e. on or after 29 January,
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
st
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/
occupant is prevented from obtaining requisite
permission for commencement of non-agricultural
use. Therefore with a sole intent to resolve the
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
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
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
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
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 or
th st
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 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
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
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 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
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026
C/SCA/2948/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/07/2026
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. 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.)
Gautam
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Mon Jul 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 28 01:09:47 IST 2026