1. Dispute over possession and ownership of agricultural land occupied by labourers and later purchased by individuals claiming title under state land reform legislation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 208
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.V.N. Bhatti, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Ram Narain (D) By Lrs. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shikha John, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik Aor, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Udit Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Ms. Rajshree Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anand Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shikha John, Adv. Ms. Lalitha Kaushik Aor, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Udit Bhardwaj, Adv. Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR
The court affirmed that unauthorized occupants who built houses before the cut-off date are deemed legal owners, hence cannot be evicted despite the claims of land ownership by the appellants.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 123 and 143 - Writ Petition seeking to quash notice under Section 123 for regularizing unauthorized occupation of land purchased by Appellant - High Court found land legally settled under Section 123, despite Appellants' prior declaration under Section 143. (Para 2)
(B) Possession Entitlement - Statutory fiction established that possession held before cut-off date of 30.06.1985 deems land settled irrespective of forceful occupation - Appellants' claim of ownership based on subsequent sale not sufficient to deny rights of occupants. (Para 4.5)
Facts of the case:
Dispute related to land claims between Appellants who purchased the land and Respondents, who occupied it as agricultural laborers. The impugned notice aimed to regularize Respondents' possession under the Act, which Appellants challenged in High Court. (Para 2)
Findings of Court:
High Court's ruling affirmed that previous legal proceedings have no bearing, and that unauthorised occupants are recognized as owners by statute from relevant cut-off date, thus dismissing Appellants' claims. (Para 4.2)
Issues: Whether the land could be regularized under Section 123 despite Appellants' title claims and declaration under Section 143. (Para 3)
Ratio Decidendi: Court holds that statutory provisions entitle occupants to rights over land built upon before cut-off date; sale of land to Appellants does not negate these rights. (Para 10)
Result: Civil Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Property purchasers argued their title and conversion of land use exempted the land from statutory regularization of occupants, while the state supported the occupants' statutory rights. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The court found that statutory provisions create a legal fiction regularizing occupation of land by house owners as of a specified date, irrespective of title and land use conversion. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 )
4. Statutory regularization of occupation on agricultural land under land reform legislation functions as a legal fiction, prevailing over subsequent ownership transfers and land use declarations. (Para 4 , 9 )
5. The court dismissed the civil appeal and special leave petitions, upholding the regularization of the occupants' possession. (Para 10 , 2 , 3 )
6. Does a declaration converting land to non-agricultural use under Section 143 render null the statutory regularisation of occupants under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act?
No. A declaration under Section 143 does not remove land from the definition of land under the Act or prevent the application of Section 123, which deems land settled with eligible occupants in possession by the cut-off date. (Para 4 )
7. Is the consent of the tenure holder required for the statutory regularisation of a house built by an occupant before the cut-off date under Section 123?
No. It is immaterial whether the houses were built with consent, forcefully, or as trespassers; the statutory fiction operates to deem the land settled with the house owner if the house existed before the prescribed cut-off date. (Para 4 )
8. Does the purchase of land by a successor-in-interest defeat the statutory rights of occupants already in possession under the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act?
No. A land purchase is subject to the statutory remedies and rights available to occupants in possession, and the purchase cannot be used to defeat an occupant's claim to regularization under the Act. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT :
S.V.N. BHATTI, J.
1. The Appellant(s) filed a Writ Petition No. 15936 of 1989 in the High Court of Allahabad seeking Certiorari quashing the Notice dated 07.06.1988 issued under Section 123 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act’), Report of the Tehsildar, Kairana dated 24.05.1989 and the Order dated 20.06.1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’), Kairana, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh and sought a further relief in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to give effect to the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer.
2. The dispute pertains to a piece of land bearing Plot No. 2362, area 1 bigha 14 biswas, situated in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Conflict is between the Appellant(s)/Ram Narain (since deceased) & others, who purchased the land and claimed rights as owners, and the Respondents/Suraj Bhan & others, who are agricultural labourers occupying the land. The issue is whether the Respondents’ unauthorised occupation of the private land could be statutorily regularised under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, effectively transferring ownership to them, or if the Appellants are entitled to evict them based on their title and a declaration converting the land to non-agricultural use under Section 143 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. The High Court, while deciding the Writ Petition No. 15936 of 1989, in its Judgment dated 07.09.2007, has held that (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 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.
3. A few dates are chronologically stated as a prelude to the main narrative. Between 1960 and 1965, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Gaon Sabha tried multiple times to evict Khazan Singh, claiming the subject land belonged to the State. After the discharge of Notices under Rule 115-C of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, issued in the years 1960 and 1962 and subsequent dropping of the Eviction Proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 1 [ Uttar Pradesh Public Land (Eviction and Recovery of Rent and Damages) Act, 1959 was repealed by Section 19 (1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972], in the favour of Khazan Singh’s in 1965, he was recognised as the Sirdar/tenure holder. Further, in 1971, a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed in favour of Khazan Singh by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, and the Board of Revenue, U.P., at Allahabad, upheld the same vide an Order dated 10.05.1978. Admittedly, around 1976–1977, the private Respondents, alleged to be the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community, occupied the subject land. After Khazan Singh died in 1979, the names of his successors-in-interest were mutated. His grandsons sold the land to the Appellants by a registered Sale Deed dated 10.08.1984. On 11.10.1984, the Appellants obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. This declaration legally converted the land use from “agricultural” to “residential/abadi”. The Appellants argue that once this declaration was made, the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act do not apply to the land. In 1988, a Notice was issued under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act against the Appellants to regularise the occupants’ possession. Subsequently, on 20.06.1989, the SDO, Kairana, passed an order directing that the names of the Respondents/occupants be recorded in the revenue records. This was based on a Tehsildar’s Report, Kairana, stating that the members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe had built houses on the land before the cut-off date of 30.06.1985. The Appellants challenged this Order by filing a Writ Petition in the High C
