Gujarat HC Quashes Rejection Of Buyers’ 2010 Mutation Entry As Amendment Deems Fragmentation-Law Transfers Through March 2026 Regularised

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners’ 2010 transfer, found contrary to the fragmentation law for want of prior permission, was deemed regularised under the newly inserted Section 9(4) of the Act.

The court held

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

It also directed

It quashed the SSRD’s order dated 27 June 2016, the Deputy Collector’s order dated 20 May 2015, and the Mamlatdar’s order dated 31 January 2011; the Rule was made absolute.

The judgment also records that the petition stood dismissed for non-prosecution qua respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

01Facts

The petitioners purchased approximately 0-69-60 hectares of land at Village Boria by registered sale deed dated 11 May 2010.

pp. 2–6

The sale was entered in the revenue records as Entry No. 1898, but the Mamlatdar rejected the entry on the ground that the transaction involved a fragment of land.

pp. 2–6

The Deputy Collector and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), upheld that decision.

pp. 2–6

The petitioners challenged those orders under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–6

They relied on a 2026 amendment to the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, which provided for regularisation of certain transfers made in breach of the Act.

pp. 2–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners’ 2010 transfer, found contrary to the fragmentation law for want of prior permission, was deemed regularised under the newly inserted Section 9(4) of the Act.

pp. 5, 7–8

ii.2. Whether the orders rejecting and affirming rejection of the revenue entry should be quashed in light of that statutory regularisation.

pp. 6, 9–10

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, 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 concerning such transfer or partition abate.

p. 5, 7

The Court also exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to review the challenged revenue orders.

p. 5, 7

No judicial precedents were relied upon.

p. 5, 7

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

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

04Reasoning

The impugned orders rested on the finding that the sale deed resulted in fragmentation without prior permission.

pp. 8–10

The Court observed that the sale occurred in 2010, within the period specified by Section 9(4), and therefore the transfer was deemed regularised.

pp. 8–10

Although the statutory provision also provides for abatement of pending proceedings, the Court noted that no proceedings concerning breach of the Act were then pending; the provision’s regularisation effect nevertheless applied to the transfer underlying the revenue-entry dispute.

pp. 8–10

The Court accordingly found that the orders could not stand.

pp. 8–10

05Holding

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

p. 10

It quashed the SSRD’s order dated 27 June 2016, the Deputy Collector’s order dated 20 May 2015, and the Mamlatdar’s order dated 31 January 2011; the Rule was made absolute.

p. 10

The judgment also records that the petition stood dismissed for non-prosecution qua respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

p. 2

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF