Statutory Amendment Abates Fragmentation Act Violations and Regularizes Land Transfers Occurring Between 1948 and 2026

The petitioners instituted proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/BANAS/7/2010 and the underlying order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Collector.

These orders arose out of revenue proceedings initiated against the petitioners for a land transfer effected by a sale deed dated 03.02.2002, alleged to be in contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act").

During the hearing, the learned AGP tendered the Notification dated 14.07.2026 (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 bonafide, and the original landowners had already accepted ("pocketed") the consideration without dispute.

Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for transfer of land in contravention of the Fragmentation Act stood abated by operation of Section 9(4), inserted by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 (Notification dated 14.07.2026), given that the sale deed was executed on 03.02.2002, i.e., within the prescribed window of 29.01.1948 to 31.03.2026.

Whether the matter ought to be remanded to the revenue authority to assess the applicability of the amendment, or whether the High Court should itself declare the proceedings abated.

The Court primarily applied Section 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Bom. LXII of 1947), inserted by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, which provides that a transfer or partition 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... shall abate".

The Court also noted the insertion of Section 5(4), empowering the State Government to declare standard areas by notification.

Further, the Court relied on Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, 2025 INSC 771, wherein the Supreme Court held that remand is not a routine measure and should not be exercised where no useful purpose is served, cautioning against remands that re-evaluate settled issues or cause unwarranted prolongation of litigation.

The Court first contextualised the Fragmentation Act as a seven-decade-old statute enacted to prevent fragmentation and secure agricultural efficiency, but observed that changed socio-economic conditions... necessitated legislative updating; the amendment was thus intended to regularise violations and balance agricultural interests with developmental needs.

On the merits, the Court found the sale deed dated 03.02.2002 fell squarely within the statutory window of 29.01.1948 to 31.03.2026 prescribed under Section 9(4).

On the question of remand, the Court applied Peter Augustine and held that the Notification itself had "crystallized" the issue by categorically mandating abatement of all pending proceedings; a remand would therefore serve no useful purpose, would multiply proceedings, and would defeat the very object of the Notification.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed; in view of Section 9(4) as inserted vide the Notification dated 14.07.2026, the proceedings stood abated, and the impugned orders dated 26.05.2016 (SSRD) and 21.12.2009 (Deputy Collector) were quashed and set aside.