RAJENDRABHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL THRO POA KANTIBHAI BECHARBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SPECIAL SECRETARY (DISPUTES)

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6796 of 2013

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAJENDRABHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL THRO POA KANTIBHAI BECHARBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SPECIAL SECRETARY (DISPUTES) &
ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MR. JWALANT VORA ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR GM JOSHI(370) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
MR SANDIP M PATEL(5649) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

Date : 15/10/2026

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) To issue a writ of mandamus and/or
certiorari and/or any other writ, order to
quash and set aside the order dated
18/03/2013 passed by the leaned
Special Secretary (Disputes) Land
Revenue Department at Ahmedabad in
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
Revision Application No.
MVV/KON/KHEDA/4/2012 and also
quash and set aside the order passed by
the learned Deputy Collector, Nadiad
dated 16/05/2012.
(b) To pending admission, hearing and till
final disposal of this petition, your
lordship be pleased to stay the order
dated 18/03/2013 passed by the leaned
Special Secretary (Disputes) Land
Revenue Department at Ahmedabad in
Revision Application No.
MVV/KON/KHEDA/4/2012 and also the
order passed by the leamed Deputy
Collector, Nadiad dated 16/05/2012.
(c) Such other and further reliefs as are
deemed fit in facts and circumstances of
this case may kindly be granted.
(d) To provide cost of this petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Hiren Modi for learned
advocate for the petitioners, learned AGP Mr. Jwalant Vora
for the respondent – State and learned advocate Mr. Sandip
Patel for the respondents 3 and 4.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1 The petitioner, Rajendrabhai Motibhai Patel, has filed
the present Special Civil Application challenging the orders
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
dated 18 March 2013 passed by the Special Secretary,
Revenue Department (Disputes) (SSRD), and 16 May 2012
passed by the Deputy Collector, whereby the sale deed in
question was declared void and the petitioner’s name was
ordered to be deleted from the revenue records.
3.2 Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were the original owners of
the land bearing Block No. 901, admeasuring 1 hectare, 27
ares and 76 square metres, situated at Mauje Salun Talpad,
Taluka Nadiad, District Kheda. On 27 May 2008, they
executed a Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No. 5,
authorising him, inter alia, to sell 84 gunthas of the land.
Acting under the said authority, respondent No. 5 executed
a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 15
September 2008 for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s name was mutated in the
revenue records vide Entry No. 3392 dated 11 January
2012, subject to a condition imposed by the Mamlatdar.
3.3 On 14 December 2011, respondent Nos. 3 and 4
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
issued a public notice expressing their intention to sell the
land. The petitioner thereafter instituted Regular Civil Suit
No. 357 of 2011 on 17 December 2011 seeking declaration
and permanent injunction. By an order dated 7 April 2012,
the Civil Court allowed the petitioner’s application at Exhibit
5 and restrained further transactions concerning the land.
Despite the said order, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 allegedly
entered into an agreement to sell the land to another person
on 9 July 2012, pursuant to which the petitioner initiated
contempt proceedings.
3.4 In the meantime, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had
approached the Deputy Collector on 5 January 2012,
seeking a declaration that the sale transaction was void on
the ground that it violated the provisions of the Gujarat
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1947. By order dated 16 May 2012, the Deputy
Collector declared the sale deed void, imposed a penalty of
Rs. 500/- upon respondent No. 5 and directed deletion of
the petitioner’s name from the revenue records. Accordingly,
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
the petitioner’s name was deleted vide Entry No. 3495 dated
18 May 2012.
3.5. The petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy
Collector before the SSRD by filing a revision application.
However, the said revision application was dismissed on 18
March 2013, thereby confirming the order of the Deputy
Collector. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the
present Special Civil Application, seeking quashing and
setting aside of both the aforesaid orders, principally
contending that the impugned orders were passed without
notice to or affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order,
the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present
petition.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, has
placed reliance upon the Government Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
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
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 18.03.2013 passed by the
learned SSRD in and order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the
learned Deputy Collector, Nadiad in Revision Application.
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
Except above, no other submissions were made by learned
advocate for the petitioners.
6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Jwalant Vora 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.
7. 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 18.03.2013
passed by the learned SSRD whereby the Revision
Application filed by the petitioners came to be rejected by
confirming the order dated 16.05.2012 passed by the
learned Deputy Collector, Nadiad. The petitioners, having a
registered sale deed in respect of the land in question, had
the sale deed entry mutated in the revenue records on
11.01.2012 vide Entry No. 3392. The entry came to be
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
rejected by the learned Deputy Collector, Nadiad vide order
dated 16.05.2012 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.
8. 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.".
9. 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
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
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.
10. 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.
11. In view of the aforesaid amended provision, the present
petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby
allowed. The order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the learned
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026

C/SCA/6796/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2026
(GJHC240411102013)
SSRD in Revision Application and the order dated
16.05.2012 passed by the learned Deputy Collector, Nadiad
in are, hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.

(D. M. DESAI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Fri Oct 23 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 23 12:35:10 IST 2026