Gujarat HC holds pending land-fragmentation proceedings abated under 2026 amendment, regularising transfers made from 1948 to March 2026

The petitioner challenged proceedings initiated under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”) concerning a sale transaction evidenced by a sale deed dated 4 May 1995.

The petitioner challenged the Prant Officer’s order dated 13 October 2011 and the SSRD’s order dated 14 September 2015, contending that the proceedings were without jurisdiction.

During the hearing, the State relied on the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 and Notification dated 14 July 2026, which amended Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act to deem certain transfers or partitions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026 as regularised and to abate pending proceedings.

The Court also recorded that the transaction was bona fide and that the original landowners had received the consideration.

1. Whether the petitioner’s 1995 sale transaction, allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act, fell within the retrospective regularisation contemplated by the amended Section 9(4).

2. Whether the pending proceedings and the impugned orders were required to be remanded to the competent authority for reconsideration, or whether they stood abated by operation of the amended Section 9(4).

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court may exercise writ and supervisory jurisdiction over statutory authorities.

It considered Sections 5 and 9 of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as amended by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026.

The amended Section 9(4) provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Fragmentation Act made on or after 29 January 1948 but on or before 31 March 2026 shall be deemed regularised without penalty or premium, and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition shall abate.

The Court also relied on Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, 2025 INSC 771, for the principle that remand is not routine and should not be ordered where it would serve no useful purpose or unnecessarily prolong litigation.

The sale deed was executed on 4 May 1995, which placed the transaction within the period covered by Section 9(4).

Since the amended provision expressly regularised qualifying transfers and directed that all pending proceedings concerning them should abate, the Court held that no further factual determination by the subordinate authority was necessary in the circumstances of the case.

The Court rejected the State’s request for remand because remand would create multiplicity of proceedings and defeat the statutory objective of bringing pending Fragmentation Act litigation to an end.

The Court further noted the bona fide nature of the transaction and that the consideration had already been received by the original landowners, who therefore had no basis to obstruct the revenue proceedings, while retaining any appropriate civil remedy available in law.

It held that the 1995 transaction was covered by the amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act and that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner stood abated by operation of law.

The orders dated 13 October 2011 passed by the Prant Officer and 14 September 2015 passed by the SSRD were quashed and set aside.