The Supreme Court has upheld the regularisation of possession of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe occupants under Section 123 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, holding that a subsequent purchaser cannot defeat the occupants’ statutory rights by relying on a declaration under Section 143 of the Act.

The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and R. Mahadevan on February 25, 2026, dismissed Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009 filed by Ram Narain (since deceased) through legal representatives and others, affirming the 2007 decision of the Allahabad High Court.

Background of the Dispute

The case concerned a parcel of land bearing Plot No. 2362, measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas, situated in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants had purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated August 10, 1984, from the successors of one Khazan Singh, who had earlier succeeded in revenue proceedings establishing his tenure-holder rights.

However, members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities had allegedly occupied the land around 1976–1977 and constructed houses on it. In 1988, proceedings were initiated under Section 123 of the Act to regularise their possession. On June 20, 1989, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Kairana, directed that the names of the occupants be recorded in revenue records, relying on a Tehsildar’s report stating that the houses existed prior to the statutory cut-off date of June 30, 1985.

The appellants challenged the order before the Allahabad High Court, contending that once they had obtained a declaration under Section 143 converting the land from agricultural to non-agricultural (abadi) use, the provisions of the Act—including Section 123—ceased to apply.

High Court’s Findings

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in 2007, holding that Section 123(2) creates a legal fiction deeming the land settled with eligible house owners in possession as on June 30, 1985. The declaration under Section 143 excludes only Chapter VIII of the Act and does not bar the application of Chapter VII, which contains Section 123. The private respondents were not parties to the Section 143 proceedings, rendering the declaration non-binding on them. The appellants themselves had admitted in pleadings that the occupants had been in “forceful possession” and had constructed houses since 1976–1977. It was immaterial whether the houses were constructed with or without the tenure-holder’s consent; the statutory benefit applied so long as the conditions were fulfilled.

Invoking its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court also quashed pending civil suits filed by the appellants for eviction, terming their continuation an abuse of process in view of the statutory deeming provision.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that Section 143 divested revenue authorities of jurisdiction and that civil court findings could not be ignored. They contended that once the land stood converted to non-agricultural use, proceedings under Section 123 were without authority.

Rejecting these submissions, the apex court observed that the controversy lay within a narrow compass. It noted that the alleged trespassers had been in possession since 1976. The sale in favour of the appellants took place in 1984, when the land was not in actual possession of the vendors. The purchase was subject to statutory remedies available to occupants under Section 123.

The Court held that a purchaser cannot set up title to defeat statutory rights that had accrued to occupants under the Act. It further observed that the applicability of Section 143 could not override the socio-economic objective embedded in Section 123, which regularises occupation of eligible persons who had constructed houses before the cut-off date.

Finding no infirmity in the High Court’s reasoning, the Court dismissed the civil appeal.

The Supreme Court reiterated that the findings recorded in the civil appeal went to the root of the petitioners’ claim for eviction. It declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the SLPs as well.

Case Details

Case Title: Ram Narain (D) By Lrs. & Ors.  Versus The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors. 

Citation: JURISHOUR-108-SC-2026 

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4587 OF 2009

Date: 25/01/2026

Read More: ICSI Notifies 4th Grievance Redressal Hearing by ROC Delhi on February 26