Gujarat amendment regularises fragment-land transfers made between 1948 and 2026; High Court quashes cancellation orders

Agricultural land at Village Jagudan, Mehsana, was jointly owned by two persons. One co-owner sold his share in 1996; the other sold his share to the petitioners by registered sale deed on 18 February 2000, and Mutation Entry No. 713 was certified on 16 April 2000.

After a delay of nearly five years, the Deputy Collector initiated proceedings under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, held the petitioners’ transaction invalid as involving fragment land, and imposed a fine. The SSRD rejected the petitioners’ revision and confirmed that order on 17 February 2017.

The petitioners challenged both orders, relying on the subsequently added Section 9(4) of the Act.

1. Whether Section 9(4) of the Act regularised the petitioners’ 2000 transfer, which had been treated as contrary to the Act.

2. Whether the impugned orders should be quashed in light of Section 9(4), notwithstanding that no proceedings concerning the alleged breach remained pending before an authority.

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as reproduced by the Court, provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Act made on or after 29 January 1948 and on or before 31 March 2026 is deemed regularised without penalty or premium; pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The petitioners’ registered sale deed was executed in 2000, within the period specified in Section 9(4), and the transaction had been treated by the revenue authorities as contrary to the Act because prior permission had not been obtained.

The Court therefore held that the transfer was deemed regularised without penalty or premium.

Although it found that no proceedings were pending and thus abatement did not arise, it concluded that the amended provision warranted setting aside the orders invalidating the transaction.

The Rule was made absolute, with no order as to costs.