GUNVANTBHAI NANJIBHAI SHERASIYA vs SPECIAL SECRETARY - APPEALS
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5451 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GUNVANTBHAI NANJIBHAI SHERASIYA & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL SECRETARY - APPEALS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SIMRAN BALWANI for MR VIMAL A PUROHIT(5049) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1,2,3,4
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4.2,4.3,4.4,4.5
MS RAJVI SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 09/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioners praying for the
following reliefs:
“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a
writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
quashing and setting aside order dated 6.8.2013
passed by the respondent no.1 authority in Revision
Application MVV/HKP/AND/23/2012 as well as order
dated 30.8.2011 passed by the learned District
Collector, Anand in RTS Appeal No. 43 of 2011 and
declare that the suo motu proceedings as well as
order passed thereunder is bad in law and without
jurisdiction;
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be
pleased to stay the implementation, operation and
execution of the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by the
respondent no.1 authority in Revision Application
MVV/HKP/AND/23/2012 as well as order dated
30.8.2011 passed by the learned District Collector,
Anand in RTS Appeal No. 43 of 2011 and further be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
maintain status quo of the revenue record and further
pleased to restore entry being No. 675 and 415
mutated in the revenue record;
(C) During the pendency and final disposal of the
present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be
pleased to direct the DILR to place on record the
exact position over the site as well as difference of
opinion by the proceedings i.e. at the time of
allotment and at the time of cancellation and further
be pleased to direct the same to undertake fresh
measurement and submitted report before this
Hon’ble Court;
(D) Any other and further relief that may deem fit by
this Hon’ble court in the interest of justice;”
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Simran Balwani for learned
advocate Mr. Vimal Purohit for the petitioners and learned AGP
Ms. Rajvi Shah for the respondent – State.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 Out of the land admeasuring about 1-49-83 Hec-Are-
Sq.mtrs. of Survey No. 153, situated at Village – Ravipura,
Taluka – Petlad, District – Anand, respondent No.4
purchased land admeasuring about 0-48-56 Hec-Are-
Sq.mtrs of undivided parcel of land by way of a registered
sale deed dated 11.02.2002. The entry with respect to the
registered sale deed came to be mutated in the revenue
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
records by way of Entry No. 415 (wrongly stated as Entry No.
446 in the order) on 01.06.2002. In the year 2009, after a
period of almost 9 years, petitioners purchased the said land
from respondent No. 4 by way of a registered sale deed
dated 13.10.2009. The said entry came to be certified and
mutated in the revenue record being entry No. 675 on
12.01.2010. Learned District Collector, Anand issued Notice
under Rule 108(6) of he Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972
in RTS suo motu Revision No. 43 of 2010 to respondent No.
4 and the petitioners. The learned District Collector, Anand,
on 30.08.2011, cancelled the entry No. 675 on the ground
that sale deed executed in favour of petitioners 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. The learned District Collector further
directed learned Deputy Collector, Petlad to initiate separate
proceedings of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed
Revision Application before the learned Special Secretary
(Appeal) Revenue Department, Gujarat (hereinafter, referred
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
to as “SSRD” ) – respondent No. 1 herein, who, vide order
dated 06.08.2013, rejected the Revision Application and
upheld the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned
District Collector, Anand.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order,
the petitioners are 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
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
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
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
06.08.2013 passed by the learned SSRD in Revision Application
and order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned District
Collector, Anand in Revision Application. Except above, no other
submissions were made by learned advocate for the petitioners.
5. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Rajvi Shah for respondent No.1
could not contradict the aforesaid facts and contended that Sub-
Section(4) has been inserted 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 06.08.2013 passed by the learned SSRD
whereby the Revision Application filed by the petitioners came to
be rejected by confirming the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by
the learned District Collector, Anand. The petitioners, having a
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
registered sale deed dated 13.10.2009 in respect of the land in
question, had the sale deed entry mutated in the revenue records
on 12.01.2010 vide Entry No. 675. The entry came to be rejected
by the learned District Collector, Anand vide order dated
30.08.2011 by holding that the sale is of a fragment land. Learned
SSRD also affirmed the finding of learned Collector and rejected
the Revision Application of petitioners.
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
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026
C/SCA/5451/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2026
(GJHC240424422014)
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 06.08.2013 passed by the learned SSRD in
Revision Application No.MVV/HKP/AND/23/2012 and the order
dated 30.08.2011 passed by the learned District Collector, Anand
in RTS/SUO MOTU/Revision No.43/2011 are, hereby quashed
and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MUSKAN
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Thu Oct 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 16 01:06:24 IST 2026