Section 9(4) retrospectively regularises specified fragmentation-law transfers and abates all pending proceedings.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 18 November 2013 passed by the Assistant Collector and the order dated 18 June 2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (SSRD), in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/BNS/18/2014, concerning alleged contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).

The relevant sale deed in favour of the petitioners was executed on 28 January 1997.

During the hearing, the State relied on the Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 and Notification dated 14 July 2026, which amended Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act to regularise specified transfers or partitions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026 and to abate pending proceedings concerning them.

The State sought remand for determination of whether the transaction fell within the amended provision, whereas the petitioners sought direct abatement of the proceedings.

Whether the petitioners’ transaction, having taken place on 28 January 1997, fell within the temporal scope of amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act and was thereby deemed regularised.

Whether the pending proceedings and the orders passed under the Fragmentation Act were required to be abated and quashed, or whether the matter should be remanded to the competent authority for reconsideration.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, as inserted by the 2026 amendment, under which a transfer or partition contrary to the Act made on or after 29 January 1948 but on or before 31 March 2026 is deemed to have been regularised without penalty or premium, and all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

The Court also considered the amended Section 5(4), empowering the State Government to declare standard areas for classes of land in specified local areas.

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 serves no useful purpose or merely prolongs litigation.

The Court found that the petitioners’ sale deed dated 28 January 1997 fell squarely within the period specified in Section 9(4).

Consequently, the transaction was deemed regularised without payment of penalty or premium, and the statutory consequence of abatement applied to the pending proceedings.

The Court rejected the State’s request for remand because the material facts were undisputed, the transaction was treated as bona fide, and the original landowners had already received the sale consideration.

Applying the anti-remand principle in Peter Augustine, the Court held that remanding the matter would serve no useful purpose, create multiplicity of proceedings, and frustrate the object of the amendment, which expressly provided for abatement of pending proceedings.

The proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the Fragmentation Act were held to have abated by virtue of amended Section 9(4), and the Assistant Collector’s order dated 30 November 2013 and the SSRD’s order dated 18 June 2016 were quashed and set aside.