Land transfers violating Gujarat’s fragmentation law deemed regularised if made by March 2026, High Court rules in mutation dispute

The petitioner challenged orders refusing to sustain mutation Entry No. 3743, which recorded a sale of the land in question.

The Mamlatdar rejected the entry on 13 May 2011; the subsequent revenue authorities, including the Prant Officer, District Collector and Special Secretary (Appeals), upheld its cancellation on the ground that the sale resulted in a fragment contrary to the applicable law.

During the petition, the petitioner relied on Government Ordinance No. 2/2026, which added Section 9(4) to the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

The judgment’s factual narrative is internally inconsistent: paragraph 3.1 describes a different sale and mutation entry, whereas paragraph 6 addresses Entry No. 3743 and a 2010 sale.

Whether the transfer underlying Entry No. 3743 was deemed regularised under Section 9(4) of the Act, as amended, because it occurred within the provision’s specified dates.

Whether the impugned orders cancelling the mutation entry could stand in light of that deemed regularisation.

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, as added 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 before an officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

The Court applied this provision to the transfer at issue, which it found fell within the prescribed period.

The cancellation of the entry rested on the conclusion that the sale contravened the Act because prior permission had not been obtained.

The Court held that Section 9(4) deemed the transfer regularised because the sale fell between the statutory dates, removing the basis for maintaining the impugned orders.

It noted that no proceedings concerning breach of the Act remained pending, so the provision’s abatement clause did not arise.

The connected civil application was disposed of.

Although the petition also sought a direction to certify Entry No. 3743, the judgment does not expressly grant that direction.