Gujarat HC applies new law regularising land-fragmentation transfers made from 1948 to March 2026, quashes cancellation of sale entry

Respondent No. 4 purchased an undivided parcel of land in Survey No. 153, Village Ravipura, by registered sale deed dated 11 February 2002; the transaction was recorded in Entry No. 415.

The petitioners subsequently purchased the land from respondent No. 4 by registered sale deed dated 13 October 2009, and the mutation was recorded as Entry No. 675 on 12 January 2010.

In suo motu revenue proceedings, the District Collector cancelled Entry No. 675 on 30 August 2011, holding that the sale involved a fragment and contravened the fragmentation legislation because prior permission had not been obtained.

The Special Secretary (Appeals) affirmed that decision on 6 August 2013.

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

During the petition, they relied on Government Ordinance No. 2/2026, which inserted Section 9(4) into the Act.

Whether the petitioners’ 2009 transfer, treated by the revenue authorities as contrary to the fragmentation legislation, was deemed regularised under Section 9(4).

Whether the challenged revenue orders cancelling the mutation entry could stand in light of that statutory regularisation.

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as inserted by Government Ordinance No. 2/2026, 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 regularised without penalty or premium; pending proceedings before an officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

The Court also noted that no proceedings concerning breach of the Act remained pending before any authority in this case.

No judicial precedents were relied upon.

The sale deed in favour of the petitioners was executed on 13 October 2009, within the period specified in Section 9(4).

The Court therefore held that the transfer was deemed regularised, notwithstanding the revenue authorities’ earlier finding that it involved an unlawful fragment.

Because no separate proceedings concerning breach of the Act were pending, the statutory abatement provision did not require a further order; nevertheless, the amendment removed the basis for cancelling the mutation on the ground of the transfer’s contravention of the Act.

The Rule was made absolute accordingly.