Transfers Contravening Fragmentation Act Between 1948 and 2026 Deemed Regularized and Pending Proceedings Abated

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order dated 05.08.2017 passed by the SSRD in Revision Application No. MVV/KON/AMD/6/2006 and the order dated 26.04.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector, seeking a declaration that the proceedings initiated for breach of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Fragmentation Act") were without jurisdiction.

The underlying transaction was a sale deed dated 27.08.2001 executed in favour of the petitioners.

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, whereby transfers or partitions made in contravention of the Act on or after 29.01.1948 but on or before 31.03.2026 stood deemed regularised without penalty or premium, and all pending proceedings would abate.

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

1. Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for transfer of land in contravention of the Fragmentation Act were liable to be declared abated in view of the newly inserted Section 9(4) of the Act, introduced by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026.

2. Whether the matter required remand to the authority concerned to decide the applicability of the Notification dated 14.07.2026, or whether the High Court could itself declare the proceedings abated.

Sections 5(4) and 9(4) of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (Bom. LXII of 1947), as inserted by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 vide Notification dated 14.07.2026.

Section 9(4) mandates that a transfer or partition of land contrary to the Act made on or after 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, 2025 INSC 771, wherein the Supreme Court held that remand is not a routine measure and an appellate court should not remand a matter where no useful purpose is served, in order to avoid unwarranted prolongation and multiplicity of litigation.

The Court found that substantial socio-economic changes, urban expansion, and the inclusion of agricultural lands in residential, commercial, and industrial zones under development plans had rendered the statutory restrictions an obstacle to legitimate non-agricultural use, prompting the State to regularise violations and align the law with present-day land-use realities.

Applying Section 9(4) to the facts, the Court found that the sale deed dated 27.08.2001 indisputably fell within the statutory window of 29.01.1948 to 31.03.2026, rendering the transfer deemed regularised and the pending proceedings liable to abatement.

On the question of remand, the Court reasoned that the transaction was an admitted bona fide one and the original landowners, having pocketed the consideration without dispute, had no locus in the revenue proceedings.

Invoking Peter Augustine, the Court held that remanding the matter would serve no useful purpose, would generate multiplicity of proceedings, and would frustrate the categorical legislative command that pending proceedings "shall abate"—which was the very object of the Notification.

The petition was allowed; in view of amended Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act (Notification dated 14.07.2026), the Court declared that the proceedings shall stand abated, and quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 05.08.2017 (SSRD) and 26.04.2006 (Deputy Collector).