Gujarat HC Quashes Orders Against Land Buyer As Amendment Deems 2010 Transfer Regularised Under Fragmentation Act

In brief

The question

1. Whether the transfer of the land, made within the period specified in Section 9(4), was deemed regularised despite being contrary to the Act.

The court held

The Court held that the transfer was deemed regularised under Section 9(4) and allowed the petition.

It also directed

It quashed and set aside the SSRD’s order dated 9 August 2016 and the Prant Officer’s order dated 30 April 2015, and made the Rule absolute.

01Facts

Agricultural land bearing Survey No. 514 at Sansoli, Kheda, originally belonged to respondents 3–7.

pp. 3–5

Respondents 1 and 2 purchased it by registered sale deed dated 20 November 2007 and later sold it to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 18 May 2010; the relevant revenue entries were subsequently cancelled and re-entered.

pp. 3–5

In suo motu proceedings under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, the Prant Officer held the transaction illegal by order dated 30 April 2015. The SSRD dismissed the petitioner’s revision and affirmed that order on 9 August 2016.

pp. 4–6

The petitioner challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227, relying on the insertion of Section 9(4) of the Act by Government Ordinance No. 2/2026.

pp. 2, 5–6

Separately, the Court allowed an application to bring the heirs of deceased respondent No. 3 on record, condoning a delay of 3,897 days.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the transfer of the land, made within the period specified in Section 9(4), was deemed regularised despite being contrary to the Act.

pp. 5–8

ii.2. Whether the orders holding the transaction illegal and rejecting the petitioner’s revision should be quashed in light of Section 9(4).

pp. 6–8

03Law Applied

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as inserted by Government Ordinance No. 2/2026 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; pending proceedings before an officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

pp. 5, 7–8

No judicial precedents were cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 Section 9

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s registered sale deed was dated 18 May 2010 and therefore fell within the period specified in Section 9(4).

pp. 6–8

Since the impugned orders treated the sale as unlawful for contravening the Act, the statutory deeming provision regularised the transfer without penalty or premium.

pp. 6–8

The Court noted that no proceedings concerning breach of the Act remained pending before an authority, so abatement was not at issue; nevertheless, the statutory regularisation applied to the transfer.

p. 8