Transfers violating the Fragmentation Act between 1948 and 31 March 2026 stand regularised, with pending proceedings abated.

The petitioners challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”), the orders dated 17 December 2009 passed by the Assistant Collector and 27 November 2017 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department, in revision proceedings concerning a land transaction.

The petitioners relied on a sale deed executed on 2 July 1993, which fell within the period covered by the subsequent statutory amendment to Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act.

During the hearing, the State produced the Notification dated 14 July 2026 introducing Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, including Section 9(4), under which certain transfers or partitions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026 were deemed regularised and pending proceedings were to abate.

The transaction was treated as bona fide, and the original landowners had already received the consideration from the purchaser.

1. Whether the petitioners’ 2 July 1993 land transaction was covered by Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act and consequently stood regularised without payment of penalty or premium.

2. Whether the pending proceedings and the impugned orders were required to be declared 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 and the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

Section 9(4), introduced by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, provides that a transfer or partition contrary to the Fragmentation 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 that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transfer or partition abate.

The Court also 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 would unnecessarily prolong litigation and create multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court found that the sale deed dated 2 July 1993 was within the statutory period specified in Section 9(4) and that the transaction was bona fide.

Since the amended provision expressly deemed qualifying transactions regularised and directed abatement of all pending proceedings, no further factual determination by the revenue authority was necessary.

The Court rejected the State’s request for remand because remand would serve no useful purpose, prolong the litigation, and defeat the object of the amendment, particularly when the transaction’s relevant date and bona fide character were undisputed.

The original landowners, having accepted the sale consideration, had no locus to oppose the revenue proceedings, although any independent grievance could be pursued through an appropriate legal remedy.

The proceedings initiated against the petitioners therefore stood abated, and the orders dated 17 December 2009 and 27 November 2017 were quashed and set aside.

The Special Civil Application was accordingly allowed.