Gujarat HC Abates Fragmentation Act Proceedings After 2026 Amendment Regularises Land Transfers Made Up to March 31, 2026

The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Gujarat Land Revenue Code to challenge the order dated 27 February 2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) in Revision Application No. 1 of 2012, as well as the Deputy Collector’s order dated 27 May 2010.

The underlying transaction was a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners on 31 March 2008, allegedly in contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).

During the hearing, the State relied on Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, notified on 14 July 2026, by which Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act was amended to regularise certain transfers or partitions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026 and to abate pending proceedings concerning such transactions.

The petitioners contended that, since their 2008 transaction fell within the prescribed period, the pending proceedings should be declared abated rather than remanded.

The record also indicated that the original landowners had received the sale consideration and that the transaction was bona fide.

1. Whether the 2008 sale transaction, being a transfer made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026, was covered by Section 9(4) of the amended Fragmentation Act and consequently stood regularised without penalty or premium?

2. Whether the pending proceedings and the orders passed by the revenue authorities should be remanded for reconsideration or treated as abated and quashed in light of the statutory amendment?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code.

The Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as amended by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, was central to the decision: Section 5(4) authorises the State Government to declare standard areas for classes of land in specified local areas, while Section 9(4) provides that transfers or partitions contrary to the Act made on or after 29 January 1948 and on or before 31 March 2026 are deemed regularised without penalties or premium, and that all pending proceedings concerning such transfers or partitions abate.

The Court also applied the principle that remand is not to be ordered mechanically where it would serve no useful purpose or unnecessarily prolong litigation, relying on Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier , 2025 INSC 771.

The Court found that the petitioners’ sale deed dated 31 March 2008 fell squarely within the temporal scope of Section 9(4) of the amended Fragmentation Act.

Since the statutory amendment expressly deemed qualifying transfers to be regularised and mandated abatement of all pending proceedings, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the revenue authority for a fresh determination.

The Court further noted that the transaction was bona fide, the original landowners had accepted the sale consideration, and no dispute remained concerning the payment.

Applying the anti-remand principle in Peter Augustine , the Court concluded that remand would create multiplicity of proceedings and defeat the purpose of the statutory regularisation scheme.

It held that the 2008 transfer was covered by Section 9(4) of the amended Fragmentation Act, stood regularised without penalty or premium, and that the pending proceedings consequently abated.

The petition was allowed; the orders dated 27 May 2010 and 27 February 2017 were quashed and set aside, and the rule was made absolute to that extent.