Proceeding for violation of Fragmentation Act stands abated by retrospective deemed regularization of transfers under statutory amendment.

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD) in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/SBR/1/2012, and the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector, whereby the sale transaction recorded vide Entry No. 2764 was declared invalid for contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act").

The sale deed in favour of the petitioners was executed on 01.11.2004.

During the hearing, the learned AGP tendered a Notification dated 14.07.2026 issued by the Revenue Department pursuant to Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, amending Sections 5 and 9 of the Fragmentation Act, and submitted that the matter be remanded to the authority concerned to determine whether the case fell within the Notification.

It was an admitted position that the transaction was bona fide and that the original landowners had already received and retained the sale consideration.

1. Whether, by virtue of Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act inserted by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, the petitioners' sale transaction dated 01.11.2004 stood deemed regularized and the proceedings initiated against it stood abated.

2. Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the authority concerned to determine the applicability of the Notification dated 14.07.2026, or whether the Court could itself declare the proceedings abated.

Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, inserted by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 (Notification dated 14.07.2026), which mandates that a transfer or partition of land contrary to the Act, made on or after 29.01.1948 but on or before 31.03.2026, "shall be deemed to have been regularised without charging any penalties or premium therefor and all pending proceedings before any officer or authority in respect of the aforesaid transfer or partition shall abate".

The Court also took note of the newly inserted Section 5(4), empowering the State Government to declare standard areas by notification.

Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, 2025 INSC 771, wherein the Supreme Court held that remand is not a routine measure but a tool to ensure justice only where the facts or evidence necessitate further proceedings, and cautioned against remanding where no useful purpose would be served, to avoid unwarranted prolongation of litigation.

The Court examined the legislative object of the Fragmentation Act — enacted over seven decades ago to prevent fragmentation of agricultural holdings and secure agricultural efficiency — and observed that substantial changes in socio-economic conditions, expansion of urban and municipal areas, and inclusion of agricultural lands in residential, commercial, and industrial zones had rendered statutory restrictions an impediment to legitimate non-agricultural use, prompting the State to amend Sections 5 and 9 to regularize long-standing violations and balance agricultural interests with developmental needs.

Applying Section 9(4), the Court found that the impugned transaction, having been executed on 01.11.2004, fell squarely within the statutory window (29.01.1948 to 31.03.2026) fixed by the State Government, rendering the transaction deemed regularized and the pending proceedings liable to abate.

On the issue of remand, the Court reasoned that: (i) the transaction was admitted to be bona fide; (ii) the original landowners, having pocketed the consideration, had no locus in the revenue proceedings (their remedy, if aggrieved, lay elsewhere); and (iii) in light of Peter Augustine, remand would serve no useful purpose, would create multiplicity of proceedings, and would defeat the categorical legislative mandate in the Notification that pending proceedings "shall abate" — the issues having already crystallized through the amendment itself.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed; the proceedings were declared abated in view of the amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act vide Notification dated 14.07.2026, and the impugned orders dated 29.09.2015 (SSRD) and 14.11.2011 (Deputy Collector) were quashed and set aside.