Gujarat HC abates land-fragmentation proceedings after amendment regularises transfers made from 1948 to March 31, 2026

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 27 November 2015 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), in Revision Application No. SABAR/1-A/2013, and the Deputy Collector’s order dated 18 December 2011 concerning alleged contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).

The underlying sale deed in favour of the petitioner was executed on 20 July 2009.

During the hearing, the State relied on the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, notified on 14 July 2026, which introduced amendments to Sections 5 and 9 of the Fragmentation Act, including a provision for deemed regularisation of certain past transfers and abatement of pending proceedings.

The petitioner contended that, since the transaction fell within the statutory period, the proceedings should be declared abated rather than remanded.

1. Whether the petitioner’s sale transaction dated 20 July 2009, allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act, was covered by the retrospective regularisation and abatement provision introduced as Section 9(4).

2. Whether the pending proceedings ought to be remanded to the revenue authority for determination of the amendment’s applicability, or should be declared abated by the High Court itself.

3. Whether the impugned orders of the Deputy Collector and the SSRD were liable to be quashed and set aside in view of Section 9(4).

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the impugned revenue orders.

Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, as introduced by the 2026 amendment, provides that a transfer or partition made contrary to the Act on or after 29 January 1948 and on or before 31 March 2026 is deemed to have been regularised without penalty or premium, and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

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

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

The Court found that the petitioner’s transaction occurred on 20 July 2009, well within the period specified in Section 9(4), which extends from 29 January 1948 to 31 March 2026.

Since the amendment expressly regularised such transfers without penalty or premium and mandated abatement of all pending proceedings, the legal consequence followed directly from the statutory provision.

The Court rejected the State’s request for remand because applicability of the amended provision was clear on the admitted facts, and remand would create unnecessary multiplicity and delay contrary to the statutory object.

The Court also noted that the transaction was treated as bona fide and that the original landowners had already received the sale consideration; any separate grievance concerning the transaction could be pursued in an appropriate remedy.

Applying Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, the Court held that the proceedings concerning the petitioner’s 20 July 2009 transaction stood abated.

The orders dated 18 December 2011 passed by the Deputy Collector and 27 November 2015 passed by the SSRD were quashed and set aside.