1980 land sale regularised under amended Fragmentation Act; Gujarat HC quashes pending proceedings

The petitioner challenged the order dated 15.10.2012 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), in Revision Application No. MVV/CON/BVN/02/2010, which affirmed the Deputy Collector’s order dated 29.11.2009 in RTS Case No. 305 of 2009 concerning an alleged violation of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).

The underlying sale transaction was executed on 22.12.1980, thereby falling within the period covered by the subsequent amendment to Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act.

During the hearing, the State relied on the amendment dated 14.07.2026, under which certain transfers or partitions made between 29.01.1948 and 31.03.2026 were deemed regularised and pending proceedings were directed to abate.

The Court also noted that the transaction was bona fide and that the original landowners had already received the sale consideration.

Whether the petitioner’s sale transaction dated 22.12.1980, allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act, was covered by the amended Section 9(4) and consequently deemed regularised?

Whether the pending proceedings and the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and SSRD were liable to be set aside as having abated under the amended Section 9(4)?

Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the competent authority for determining the applicability of the amendment?

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in exercising judicial review over the orders of the revenue authorities.

Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, inserted by the amendment dated 14.07.2026, provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Act, made on or after 29.01.1948 but on or before 31.03.2026, shall be deemed to have been regularised without penalty or premium, and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition shall abate.

The Court also referred to the amended Section 5(4), empowering the State Government to declare standard areas for classes of land in local areas.

Relying on Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, 2025 INSC 771, the Court reiterated that remand is not routine and should not be ordered where it would serve no useful purpose or unnecessarily prolong litigation.

The Court held that the sale dated 22.12.1980 fell squarely within the statutory period specified in Section 9(4), namely, between 29.01.1948 and 31.03.2026.

Since the amendment deemed such transactions to be regularised and expressly directed abatement of all pending proceedings, no further adjudication by the revenue authority was necessary.

The Court rejected the State’s request for remand because the relevant facts were undisputed, the transaction was accepted as bona fide, and remand would merely create multiplicity and prolong the litigation contrary to the statutory object of abatement.

The Court further observed that the original landowners, having received the sale consideration, could not assert a locus in the revenue proceedings, though they could pursue any independent remedy available in law if aggrieved.

It held that the petitioner’s 1980 transaction was covered by amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, stood deemed regularised without penalty or premium, and that the pending proceedings had abated.

The petition was accordingly allowed; the orders dated 29.11.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector and 15.10.2012 passed by the SSRD were quashed and set aside, and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were declared abated.