01Facts
The petitioner challenged the order dated 20 December 2019, by which the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals), affirmed orders of the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector and Collector in proceedings alleging breach of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).
p. 1 · ¶ 1The petitioner relied on a registered sale deed executed in 2004.
p. 2 · ¶ 4During the hearing, the State produced a notification dated 14 July 2026 introducing amendments to the Act that provided for regularisation of qualifying transfers or partitions and abatement of pending proceedings.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3, 602Issues
i.Whether the petitioner’s 2004 transaction fell within Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, such that the pending proceedings stood abated.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–7ii.Whether the matter should be remanded to the authority to determine the amendment’s applicability, as sought by the State.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3, 7.103Law Applied
Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, as inserted by the Gujarat Ordinance referred to in the notification dated 14 July 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, and that pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning that transfer or partition abate.
p. 4 · ¶ 6The Court also reproduced Section 5(4), which empowers the State Government to declare a standard area for any class of land in any local area by Gazette notification.
p. 4 · ¶ 604Reasoning
The Court considered the 2004 sale deed and the newly inserted Section 9(4), whose prescribed period includes transactions made before 31 March 2026.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4, 6–7Since the challenged proceedings concerned an allegedly contravening transaction within that period, the Court held that the statutory consequence was abatement.
p. 4 · ¶ 7.1It rejected the State’s request for remand because the amendment itself provided for abatement of pending proceedings.
p. 4 · ¶ 7.105Holding
The Court allowed the petition, held that the proceedings stood abated under Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, and quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 20 December 2019.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8Original Court PDF
MEVADA DIVYANGBHAI JAYANTIBHAIvsADDITIONAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT (APPEALS), AHMEDABAD
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
