The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that the unauthorized occupation of private land by members of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities can be statutorily regularized 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 the “legal fiction” created by the statute deems the land settled with the house owners in possession by the cut-off date, regardless of whether the land was later declared non-agricultural.
A Bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the appeal filed by the landowners, Ram Narain (deceased) and others, who had challenged a 2007 judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute involved Plot No. 2362, measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas, in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Originally, the land was held by one Khazan Singh, who was recognized as the tenure holder (Sirdar) after multiple failed eviction attempts by the State between 1960 and 1965. Around 1976-1977, the private respondents, belonging to the SC/ST community, occupied the land and built houses.
Following Khazan Singh’s death in 1979, his successors sold the land to the Appellants via a registered Sale Deed on August 10, 1984. Shortly after, on October 11, 1984, the Appellants obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, converting the land use from “agricultural” to “residential/abadi.”
In 1988, authorities issued a notice under Section 123 to regularize the occupants’ possession. On June 20, 1989, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Kairana, directed that the occupants be recorded in the revenue records based on a Tehsildar’s report confirming they had built houses before the statutory cut-off date of June 30, 1985. The Appellants challenged this in the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their petition.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Appellants: The Appellants contended that once a declaration under Section 143 was made, the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act—including Section 123—ceased to apply to the land. They argued that the High Court ignored the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and the fact that the occupants were “trespassers.” They further claimed the land fell within municipal limits, exempting it from the Act.
For the Respondents (State): Counsel for the State argued that the cut-off date for regularization was June 30, 1985. It was contended that the Appellants were not entitled to relief because the occupants had already changed the features of the land by the time the Appellants purchased it.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the findings of the High Court, noting that Section 123(2) creates a “legal fiction” and contains a non-obstante clause.
On the Nature of Possession: The Court noted that for the “socio-economic” deeming provision to take effect, it was “entirely immaterial whether the houses were built with the tenure holder’s consent, forcefully, or as trespassers.” The Court observed:
“If the Legislature intended to exclude unauthorised occupants, it would have explicitly stated so.”
On the Section 143 Declaration: The Court agreed with the High Court that a declaration under Section 143 only excludes the application of Chapter VIII (relating to tenure) and affects succession laws; it does not prevent the application of Chapter VII, which contains Section 123. Furthermore, the private respondents were never parties to the Section 143 proceedings, making the declaration non-binding on them.
On Possession at the time of Purchase: The Bench highlighted that the Appellants purchased the land in 1984 when they did not have actual possession, as the occupants were already there.
“The purchase by the Appellant(s) is subject to the statutory remedy available to the occupants. The purchase cannot be set up to defeat the occupants’ claim or right under Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal, concluding that the fact that third parties (the occupants) had converted the land to non-agricultural use before the Appellants sought their own declaration disentitled the Appellants to relief.
The Court dismissed the Civil Appeal and the related Special Leave Petitions (S.L.P. (C) Nos. 3822-3823 of 2023), thereby upholding the regularization of the SC/ST occupants’ homes.
Case Title: Ram Narain (D) by LRs. & Ors. v. The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009 (with SLP (C) Nos. 3822-3823 of 2023)
