Gujarat HC applies new rule regularising decades of land transfers to a 2006 sale, quashes revenue orders

Respondent No. 6 sold portions of land at Village Ognaj to respondent No. 5 in November 2006; respondent No. 5 then sold the land to the petitioners.

Mutation Entries Nos. 7185, 7186 and 7187 were made, but the Mamlatdar cancelled them on 9 March 2007.

The Deputy Collector later allowed appeals and certified the entries subject to a condition of joint cultivation.

On revision by respondents Nos. 6–9, the District Collector set aside that order; the petitioners’ subsequent revisions before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) were rejected on 4 August 2009.

The petitioners challenged the resulting orders, contending that a 2026 amendment to Section 9 of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 regularised the transfer.

Whether the transfer made in 2006, which was treated as contrary to the Act for want of prior permission and resulted in cancellation of the mutation entries, was deemed regularised by amended Section 9(4).

Whether the orders cancelling or setting aside the mutation entries should be quashed in light of that amendment.

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as amended, 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 found that the 2006 sale fell within the statutory period specified in Section 9(4) and that the mutation entries had been cancelled because the transaction was considered contrary to the Act for lack of prior permission.

It therefore held that the transfer was deemed regularised.

Since no proceedings concerning breach of the Act remained pending before an authority, the Court considered abatement inapplicable, but concluded that the amended provision nevertheless warranted setting aside the impugned orders.

The Rule was made absolute.