Section 123 U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act Deems Settlement with Occupants Despite Section 143 Declaration: Supreme Court Upholds Statutory Regularisation

Case Name: Ram Narain (D) by LRs. & Ors. v. The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 193; Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009

Date of Judgment/Order: 25 February 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan

Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 123(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 creates a statutory deeming fiction settling land with eligible occupants who had constructed houses prior to the cut-off date of 30.06.1985, irrespective of whether such possession was authorised or forceful. A declaration under Section 143 converting agricultural land to non-agricultural use does not exclude the applicability of Section 123, nor can a subsequent purchaser defeat the statutory right of occupants to regularisation.

Summary: The dispute concerned Plot No. 2362 in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar. The appellants purchased the land in 1984 from successors of Khazan Singh, who had earlier been recognised as tenure holder after eviction proceedings were dropped and a suit under Section 229-B was decreed in his favour. In 1976–77, members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities had occupied the land and constructed houses. After purchase, the appellants obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act converting the land to residential use and later sought eviction of the occupants. Meanwhile, proceedings under Section 123 were initiated, and on 20.06.1989 the Sub-Divisional Officer directed that the occupants’ names be recorded in revenue records based on findings that houses existed before 30.06.1985. The High Court dismissed the appellants’ writ petition, holding that Section 123 contained a non-obstante clause and created a legal fiction deeming settlement with occupants, and that the Section 143 declaration neither bound the occupants nor excluded application of Chapter VII of the Act. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that Section 143 divested revenue jurisdiction and that civil court decrees and prior proceedings precluded regularisation. The Court rejected these submissions, holding that the appellants purchased the land subject to statutory rights available to occupants, that possession since 1976 was undisputed, and that the statutory remedy under Section 123 could not be defeated by subsequent transactions or by reliance on Section 143.

Decision: The Civil Appeal was dismissed, the judgment of the High Court dated 07.09.2007 upholding regularisation of occupants under Section 123 was affirmed, and the connected Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed, with no interference warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution.