State Notification regularizing Fragmentation Act violations abates all pending proceedings without penalty or premium.

The petitioners instituted the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging (i) the order dated 29.09.2015 passed by the respondent–SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/SBR/8/2012, and (ii) the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the respondent–Deputy Collector

both arising out of proceedings initiated for an alleged transfer of land in contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act").

The petitioners had acquired the land through a sale deed executed on 11.01.2010

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 concerned authority to determine the applicability of the said Notification

It was an admitted position that the transaction was bonafide and that the original landowners, having already pocketed the sale consideration without dispute, had no locus in the revenue proceedings

1. Whether the transfer effected through the sale deed dated 11.01.2010, being a transfer contrary to the provisions of the Fragmentation Act made on or after 29th January 1948 but on or before 31st March 2026, stood deemed regularised under the newly inserted Section 9(4) of the Act, with the consequence that all pending proceedings stood abated?

2. Whether the Court ought to remand the matter to the concerned authority to determine the applicability of the Notification dated 14.07.2026, or itself declare the proceedings abated?

Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Bom. LXII of 1947), as amended by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 vide Notification dated 14.07.2026, particularly the newly inserted Section 9(4), which mandates that "a transfer or partition of a land contrary to the provisions of this Act made on or after the 29th January, 1948 but on or before 31st March, 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"

Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, reported in 2025 INSC 771, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that remand is not a routine measure but a tool to be exercised within specific legal contours only where facts or evidence necessitate further proceedings, and that a matter should not be remanded where no useful purpose is served

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

The Court first examined the legislative intent behind the amendment, observing that the Fragmentation Act—enacted over seven decades ago to prevent fragmentation of agricultural holdings and secure agricultural efficiency—required recalibration in view of substantial changes in socio-economic conditions, land-use patterns, and the expansion of urban and municipal areas

Applying Section 9(4) to the facts, the Court found it an admitted position that the impugned transaction (sale deed dated 11.01.2010) occurred within the statutorily fixed window of 29.01.1948 to 31.03.2026, thereby squarely attracting the deeming fiction of regularisation and mandatory abatement of pending proceedings

On the question of remand, the Court reasoned that since the transaction was admittedly bonafide and the original landowners—having pocketed the consideration—possessed no locus to contest the revenue proceedings, relegating the parties to the authority would serve no useful purpose

Relying on Peter Augustine, the Court held that remand would create multiplicity of proceedings and run contrary to the categorical legislative command in the Notification that pending proceedings "shall abate," which was the very object sought to be achieved by the State Government

Accordingly, the petition was allowed; in view of the amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act vide Notification dated 14.07.2026, the proceedings were declared to stand abated, and the impugned orders dated 29.09.2015 (SSRD) and 19.09.2011 (Deputy Collector) were quashed and set aside