Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Ignored as Void Merely for Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950Ceiling Violation or Minor Witness Discrepancy: Supreme Court
Case Name: Sarafat Ali (Deceased) Through LRs and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 652
Date of Judgment/Order: 23 June 2026
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. and N.V. Anjaria, J.
Held: The Supreme Court held that a registered sale deed executed by a bhumidhar in alleged contravention of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as it stood prior to the later amendments, is not void ab initio but at best voidable at the instance of the Gaon Sabha and only to the extent of contravention. The Court held that consolidation authorities could not mechanically disregard a registered sale deed as void, especially where no suit for ejectment had been filed by the Gaon Sabha within limitation. The Court further held that a registered sale deed more than thirty years old carries a presumption of due execution and authenticity, and immaterial discrepancies in the description of an attesting witness recorded decades later cannot dislodge that presumption in the absence of any plea or proof of forgery, fraud, impersonation or coercion.
Summary: The appellants claimed rights over land in village Narsipur Kalan, Haridwar, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957 executed in favour of their predecessors, who were minors at the time of purchase. Mutation was initially ordered in their favour in 1984, and during consolidation proceedings, their names were also directed to be recorded as bhumidhars, but the matter was reopened on objections by the sellers. The Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Deputy Director of Consolidation and the High Court ultimately rejected the appellants’ claim, holding that the sale deed was not proved because of discrepancies relating to the attesting witness and that the transfer was void for violating Section 154 of the Abolition Act. Reversing those findings, the Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme as it stood at the time of the 1957 sale, the later legislative amendments, Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation, and the evidentiary presumption attached to old registered documents. The Court found that the authorities had applied later statutory consequences retrospectively, failed to appreciate that Section 154 did not automatically render the transfer void at the relevant time, and wrongly treated minor inconsistencies in the witness’s village description as fatal despite the witness consistently supporting execution and delivery of possession.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the orders of the consolidation authorities, and directed that the names of the appellants be recorded in the revenue records. The Court held that the registered sale deed dated 04.06.1957 could not be discarded either on the ground of alleged Section 154 violation or on immaterial discrepancies relating to the attesting witness. There was no order as to costs.