Gujarat HC Quashes Orders Voiding Buyer’s 2008 Land Sale, Applying Amendment Regularising Fragmentation Act Transfers Through March 31, 2026

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 owned land at Mauje Salun Talpad, Nadiad.

On 27 May 2008, they executed a power of attorney authorising respondent No. 5 to sell 84 gunthas; respondent No. 5 sold the land to the petitioner by registered deed dated 15 September 2008 for ₹3,00,000.

The petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records, but the Deputy Collector later declared the sale void as involving a fragment in breach of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, and ordered deletion of the petitioner’s name.

The SSRD confirmed that order on 18 March 2013. The petitioner challenged both orders.

During the proceedings, the petitioner relied on the insertion of Section 9(4) of the Act, which provided for deemed regularisation of qualifying transfers made on or before 31 March 2026.

1. Whether the transfer made in 2008 was deemed regularised under Section 9(4) of the Act, requiring the impugned orders to be set aside.

2. Whether the proceedings for setting aside the transfer abated under Section 9(4).

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as inserted by Government Ordinance No. 2/2026, provided that a transfer or partition contrary to the Act, made from 29 January 1948 through 31 March 2026, would be deemed regularised without penalty or premium; pending proceedings before an officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition would abate.

No precedent was relied upon.

The sale deed was executed in 2008, within the period specified in Section 9(4). The Court therefore held that the transfer was deemed regularised, notwithstanding the authorities’ finding that it contravened the Act for want of prior permission.

The Court separately observed that no proceedings concerning the alleged breach were pending before an authority, so abatement did not arise; the orders nevertheless could not stand in light of the deemed regularisation.

The Rule was made absolute.