Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Land Regularization Dispute Under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 -- Legal Fiction of Section 123(2) Upholds Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Respondents Despite Section 143 Declaration

  • 24
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision in a land dispute involving Plot No. 2362 in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, where appellants purchased land from successors, a recognized Sirdar, and obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in 1984 to convert the land to residential use -- Respondents, agricultural laborers from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities, occupied the land in 1976-1977 and built houses before 30.06.1985 -- In 1988, a notice under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was issued to regularize the respondents' possession, leading to an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer in 1989 recording their names in revenue records -- The appellants challenged this via a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court in 2007 -- The Supreme Court held that Section 123(2)'s legal fiction overrides the Section 143 declaration, regularizing the respondents' occupation based on possession before the cut-off date, and upheld the quashing of pending civil suits under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process

Headnote

The Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that regularized the occupation of land by Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe respondents under Section 123 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act) -- The Court held that Section 123(2) creates a legal fiction and non-obstante clause deeming land settled with house owners in possession as on 30.06.1985, regardless of a declaration under Section 143 -- The declaration under Section 143 only excludes Chapter VIII of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and does not prevent the application of Chapter VII containing Section 123 -- The respondents' possession and construction of houses before 30.06.1985 were established, making them eligible for regularization irrespective of consent or trespass -- The High Court's exercise of suo motu powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash pending civil suits was upheld as preventing abuse of process

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether unauthorized occupation of private land by agricultural laborers could be regularized under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, effectively transferring ownership to them, despite a declaration under Section 143 converting the land to non-agricultural use

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment that regularized the respondents' occupation under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and quashed pending civil suits under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

2026 LawText (SC) (02) 63

Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009

2026-02-25

S.V.N. Bhatti J. , R. Mahadevan J.

2026 INSC 193

Mr. T. N. Singh, Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal

Ram Narain (D) By LRS. & Ors.

The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors.

Nature of Litigation: Civil appeal arising from a writ petition challenging land regularization under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought Certiorari to quash a notice and order under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and Mandamus to prevent its enforcement, while respondents sought regularization of their occupation

Filing Reason

Appellants filed the writ petition after the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order in 1989 regularizing the respondents' possession based on a Tehsildar's report

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the writ petition in 2007, upholding the regularization; earlier, eviction proceedings against Khazan Singh were dropped in 1965, and a suit under Section 229-B was decreed in his favor in 1971, upheld by the Board of Revenue in 1978

Issues

Whether unauthorized occupation of private land by agricultural laborers could be regularized under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, transferring ownership to them Whether a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act prevents the application of Section 123

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the declaration under Section 143 converted the land to non-agricultural use, making the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act inapplicable and entitling them to evict the respondents Respondents contended that Section 123(2) creates a legal fiction regularizing possession of house owners before 30.06.1985, irrespective of the Section 143 declaration

Ratio Decidendi

Section 123(2) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act operates as a legal fiction and non-obstante clause, deeming land settled with house owners in possession as on 30.06.1985, which overrides a declaration under Section 143 -- The declaration under Section 143 only excludes Chapter VIII and does not affect Chapter VII containing Section 123 -- Possession and construction of houses before the cut-off date qualify for regularization regardless of consent or trespass, and pending suits can be quashed under Article 227 to prevent abuse of process

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court held that Section 123(2) creates a 'legal fiction' and a non-obstante clause that deems the land settled with the house owners in possession as on 30.06.1985, regardless of the declaration under Section 143 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act A declaration under Section 143 only excludes the application of Chapter VIII of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and shifts the matter of succession to personal law. It does not prevent the application of Chapter VII, which contains Section 123 If eligible persons built a house on any land held by a tenure holder except a Government lessee before 30.06.1985, the land is deemed to be settled with the house owner. To effectuate the socio-economic 'deeming provision' of the Statute, it was entirely immaterial whether the houses were built with the tenure holder's consent, forcefully, or as trespassers

Procedural History

1960-1965: Eviction attempts against Khazan Singh failed; 1971: Suit under Section 229-B decreed in favor of Khazan Singh; 1976-1977: Respondents occupied the land; 1979: Khazan Singh died, successors mutated; 1984: Appellants purchased land and obtained Section 143 declaration; 1988: Notice under Section 123 issued; 1989: Sub-Divisional Officer passed order regularizing respondents' possession; 1989: Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 15936 of 1989 in High Court; 2007: High Court dismissed writ petition; 2009: Civil Appeal filed in Supreme Court; 2026: Supreme Court dismissed appeal

Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Land Regularization Dispute Under U.P. Zaminda...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Directs State to Complete Land Acquisition and Pay Compensation After...