VIPULBHAI CHHAGANBHAI THAKOR vs ADDL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT APPEAL (DISPUTE)

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18376 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIPULBHAI CHHAGANBHAI THAKOR & ANR.
Versus
ADDL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT APPEAL (DISPUTE) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANIL C THAKORE(2324) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6,9
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 7
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 8
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

Date : 23/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 praying for the following reliefs:
“(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and
allow this Special Civil Application.
(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to quashed and
set aside the impugned order of the respondent no.1
dated 27.06.2016 at Annexure-I against the order of
Dy. Collector dated 20.5.2015 in RTS Appeal No. 320
of 2014 at Annexure-D against the order of Revenue
Entry No. 1898 dated 31.01.2011 passed by the
Mamlatdar rejected the sale transaction entry in RTS
case No. 50 of 2010 in the interest of iustice.
(c) Your Lordships may be pleased to quashed and
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
set aside the impugned orders of the Mamlatdar
Petlad dated 31.01.2011 in RTS Case No. 50/2010
against the Revenue Entry No. 1898 same was
confirmed by the Dy. Collector on dated 20.05.2015
in RTS Appeal No. 320 of 2014 in the interest of
justice.
(d) Pending the admission and final disposal of this
petition. Your Lordships may be pleased to grant the
ad interim stay against the order of respondent no.1
dated 27.6.2016 at Annexure-I and further pleased to
grant the status quo in the disputed land of bearing
Block No. 311 of Village : Boria, Tal. Petlad, District.
Anand of qua, 0- 69-60 as per the register sale deed
at Annexure-A in the interest of justice.
(d) to grant such other and further relief that may be
deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case in the Interest of justice;”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Anil Thakore for the petitioners
and learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
The present petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution
qua respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The present petitioners purchased land admeasuring
about 0-69-60 Hec-Are-Sq.mtrs. situated at Village – Boria,
Taluka – Petlad, District – Anand by way of a registered sale
deed dated 11.05.2010. The entry with respect to the
registered sale deed came to be mutated in the revenue
records by way of Entry No. 1898 on 17.09.2010.
Respondent No. 9 herein objected the transaction of sale by
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
filing objections in response to the notice issued under
Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879
(hereinafter, referred to as “the Code” ). Learned Mamlatdar,
vide order dated 31.01.2011, allowed objections and thereby,
rejected the Entry No. 1898. The said order of learned
Mamlatdar was assailed by the petitioners as well as
respondent Nos. 4 to 8 herein before the learned Deputy
Collector, Petlad by way of an Appeal, which came to be
rejected vide order dated 20.05.2015 on the ground that sale
deed executed in favour of petitioner involving transfer of a
portion of the block without obtaining prior permission of the
competent authority for its division, is contrary to the
provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 and is, therefore, void.
Rameshbhai Patel, son of Shantaben Ashabhai Patel, had
instituted Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2011 against the
petitioners’ father and sought a declaration that the sale deed
was illegal, along with an injunction restraining the transfer of
the suit land. The application for injunction was rejected by
the learned Civil Court on 25.03.2013. Subsequently, by
judgment dated 08.08.2014, the learned Civil Court rejected
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2011 after considering the
documentary evidence relating to the registered sale deed.
The said judgment was not challenged before the higher
forum and no appeal was preferred by the person who had
instituted the said suit. Proceedings were initiated by the
learned Prant Officer under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 31 of the
Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1947, in Fragmentation Case No. 16 of 2015.
By order dated 30.09.2015, the learned Prant Officer dealt
with the issue concerning the land and the disputed revenue
entry. Despite withdrawal of the notice issued in connection
with the proceedings, Revenue Entry No. 1898 was not
approved or certified. As the sale transaction and Revenue
Entry No. 1898 had not been approved, the petitioners
approached respondent No. 1 under Section 203 of the
Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879, seeking approval of the
said entry and setting aside of the orders passed by the
Mamlatdar, Petlad, and the Deputy Collector, Petlad.
Respondent No. 1 initiated Revision No. MVV /Con / Anand /
1 / 2016 under Section 35 of the Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
issued notices to the parties concerned. The petitioners
submitted their case before the revisional authority and
contended that the sale transaction had been duly executed
by way of a registered sale deed, supported by payment of
consideration and the signatures and thumb impressions of
the original owners. The learned Deputy Collector has also
withdrawn the Notice dated 28.05.2010 and ultimately, the
Revision Application filed by the petitioners came to be
rejected by the learned SSRD declaring the sale deed as
illegal vide order dated 27.06.2016.
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 petitioners, 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
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
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 petitioners 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
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
27.06.2016 passed by the learned SSRD in Revision Application
No.MVV/CON/ANAND/1/2016, order dated 20.05.2015 passed by
the learned Deputy Collector, Petlad in RTS Appeal No. 320 of
2014 as well as the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the learned
Mamlatdar, Petlad in RTS Case No. 50/2010. Except above, no
other submissions were made by learned advocate for the
petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for respondent No.
1 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.
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
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 27.06.2016 passed by the learned SSRD
whereby the Revision Application filed by the petitioner came to be
rejected by confirming the order dated 20.05.2015 passed by the
learned Deputy Collector, Petlad. The petitioner, having a
registered sale deed dated 11.05.2010 in respect of the land in
question, had the sale deed entry mutated in the revenue records
on 17.09.2010 vide Entry No. 1898. The entry came to be rejected
by the learned Mamlatdar vide order dated 31.01.2011 by holding
that the sale is of a fragment land. Learned Deputy Collector
affirmed the order of cancellation of mutation entry. Learned SSRD
also affirmed the finding of learned Deputy Collector 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.".
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
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
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 27.06.2016 passed by the learned SSRD in
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026

C/SCA/18376/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240499912016)
Revision Application No.MVV/CON/ANAND/1/2016, order dated
20.05.2015 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Petlad in RTS
Appeal No. 320 of 2014 as well as order dated 31.01.2011 passed
by the learned Mamlatdar, Petlad are, hereby quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Oct 30 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 31 00:00:40 IST 2026