Gujarat High Court abates Fragmentation Act proceedings and regularises land transfers made up to March 31, 2026 free of penalty or premium

The petitioner challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Deputy Collector’s order dated 06 October 2009 and the Special Secretary, Revenue Department’s order dated 18 May 2016 in Revision Application No. 44 of 2009, concerning alleged breach of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).

The petitioner relied on a sale deed executed in 1998, pursuant to which the revenue entry was certified on 02 November 1998.

During the hearing, the State produced the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026/Notification dated 14 July 2026, which amended the Fragmentation Act and provided for deemed regularisation of certain transfers or partitions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026, together with abatement of pending proceedings.

The State sought remand for determination of the amendment’s applicability, while the petitioner sought direct abatement of the proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioner’s 1998 transaction, allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act, was covered by the amended Section 9(4) and consequently stood deemed regularised, with pending proceedings abating.

2. Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the competent authority to determine the applicability of the amended provision, or whether the High Court could directly declare the proceedings abated.

3. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the SSRD were liable to be quashed and set aside.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

It applied the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, particularly the amended Section 9(4), which provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Act made on or after 29 January 1948 and on or before 31 March 2026 shall be deemed regularised without penalty or premium, and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority in respect of such transfer or partition shall abate.

The Court also referred to the amended Section 5(4), concerning the State Government’s power to declare standard areas by notification.

On remand, it 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 Court found that the petitioner’s transaction occurred in 1998 and therefore fell within the statutory period specified in amended Section 9(4).

Since the amended provision expressly mandated abatement of all pending proceedings concerning qualifying transfers or partitions, the Court held that no factual or legal purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the revenue authority.

The Court further noted that the transaction was admitted to be bona fide, that the original landowners had received the consideration, and that the petitioner had been compelled to litigate before multiple authorities despite the absence of any subsisting dispute regarding payment.

Applying the principle against purposeless remand, the Court concluded that remand would create multiplicity of proceedings and defeat the object of the amendment, which was to regularise qualifying past transactions and bring pending proceedings to an end.

It held that the 1998 transaction was covered by amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act and that the pending proceedings stood abated by operation of law.

The petition was accordingly allowed; the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were declared abated, and the Deputy Collector’s order dated 06 October 2009 and the SSRD’s order dated 18 May 2016 were quashed and set aside.