Gujarat HC applies 2026 law deeming decades of prohibited land transfers regularised, sets aside mutation refusals

Petitioner No. 1 purchased part of Block No. 2404, Village Vamaj, by registered sale deed in 2007; he later sold it to Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in 2008.

Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 purchased the remaining portion from Respondent No. 1 in 2010.

Mutation Entries Nos. 7277, 7279 and 7650 were not certified.

The Mamlatdar declined certification, citing, among other grounds, the absence of Petitioner No. 1’s name in the revenue record and the need for prior permission to divide the block.

The Deputy Collector allowed the petitioners’ appeals, but the Collector restored the Mamlatdar’s order, and the Secretary (Appeals) affirmed it.

The petitioners challenged those orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

During the writ proceedings, they relied on the 2026 amendment to Section 9 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

Whether the 2026 addition of Section 9(4) to the Act regularized the impugned transfers, which occurred within the statutory period, despite the objection that they contravened the Act.

Whether the Collector’s and Secretary (Appeals)’ orders refusing to uphold certification of the mutation entries should be quashed in light of that amendment.

Section 9(4) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as added by Government Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, 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 regularized without penalty or premium.

Pending proceedings before an officer or authority in respect of such a transfer or partition abate.

The court found that the impugned sale deeds fell within the dates specified in Section 9(4), and that the mutation entries had been refused on the ground that the sales contravened the Act because prior permission had not been obtained.

It therefore held that the statutory deeming provision regularized the transfers.

Although it noted that no proceedings concerning breach of the Act were then pending, it considered abatement immaterial to the case and relied on the regularizing effect of the amendment.

It made the rule absolute.

The judgment does not expressly direct the Mamlatdar to certify Entries Nos. 7277, 7279 and 7650.