Gujarat High Court abates proceedings and regularises decades of unlawful land transfers under amended Fragmentation Act

The petitioner challenged, under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”), the order dated 30 June 2012 passed by the Prant Officer and the revisional order dated 5 June 2017 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/GANDHINAGAR/1/2013.

The proceedings concerned a transaction allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act. The petitioner relied on a sale deed executed on 2 August 2011, which fell within the period covered by the subsequent statutory amendment.

During the hearing, the State produced the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026/Notification dated 14 July 2026, introducing Section 9(4), under which specified transfers or partitions were deemed regularised and pending proceedings were required to abate.

The Court noted that the transaction was bona fide, that the original landowners had received the consideration, and that there was no subsisting dispute regarding payment.

1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer dated 2 August 2011, allegedly made in contravention of the Fragmentation Act, was covered by the deeming regularisation and abatement provision introduced by Section 9(4) of the Act.

2. Whether the pending proceedings and the orders passed by the Prant Officer and SSRD were required to be remanded for reconsideration or had to abate by operation of Section 9(4).

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and applied the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

Section 5(4), as introduced by the 2026 amendment, empowers the State Government to declare standard areas for specified classes of land by notification.

Section 9(4) provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Act, made on or after 29 January 1948 but on or before 31 March 2026, shall be deemed to have been regularised without penalty or premium, and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition shall abate.

The Court also 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 serves no useful purpose or would unnecessarily prolong litigation.

The petitioner’s sale deed was executed on 2 August 2011 and therefore fell within the statutory period specified in Section 9(4).

Since the amended provision deemed qualifying transactions regularised without payment of penalty or premium and expressly mandated abatement of pending proceedings, the Court found that the legal issue had already been conclusively addressed by the amendment.

Remanding the matter to the authorities would serve no useful purpose, would create multiplicity of proceedings, and would be inconsistent with the express legislative direction that pending proceedings “shall abate”.

The bona fide nature of the transaction and the fact that the original landowners had received the sale consideration further supported granting final relief rather than prolonging the proceedings.

Accordingly, the pending proceedings stood abated by operation of law.

The petition was allowed, and the orders dated 30 June 2012 passed by the Prant Officer and 5 June 2017 passed by the SSRD were quashed and set aside.