Court upholds statutory regularisation of occupants who built houses before 30.06.1985 and dismisses appeal

A bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan heard Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009 and connected Special Leave Petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision that occupants who built houses on a tenure holder's land before the cut‑off date of 30.06.1985 could be statutorily regularised under Section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appeals raised the question whether a declaration under Section 143 converting agricultural land to non‑agricultural use and the registered sale in favour of the appellants ousted the statutory remedy available to the occupants.

The Court summarised that the High Court had correctly interpreted the statute and affirmed that the purchase by successors‑in‑interest could not be used to defeat the statutory claim of eligible occupants. The Court held that the findings of fact — notably the Tehsildar’s report that houses existed on the land on or before 30.06.1985 and the appellants’ own earlier admissions of forceful possession by occupants — militated against interference. The bench observed that the statutory cut‑off and the scheme of Chapter VII were paramount and that the Section 143 declaration did not oust the applicability of Section 123. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "If eligible persons built a house on any land held by a tenure holder except a Government lessee before 30.06.1985, the land is deemed to be settled with the house owner. To effectuate the socio‑economic 'deeming provision' of the Statute, it was entirely immaterial whether the houses were built with the tenure holder’s consent, forcefully, or as trespassers. If the Legislature intended to exclude unauthorised occupants, it would have explicitly stated so." The Court therefore dismissed the Civil Appeal and the connected SLPs.

Background
The dispute concerned Plot No. 2362 (1 bigha 14 biswas) at Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar. The original tenure holder, Khazan Singh, faced eviction proceedings in the 1960s which ultimately favoured him; his successors sold the land to the appellants by registered sale deed dated 10.08.1984. On 11.10.1984 the appellants obtained a declaration under Section 143 that converted the land from "agricultural" to "residential/abadi". Respondent occupants, alleged members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, had occupied the land and constructed houses around 1976–77. In 1988 the revenue authorities issued a notice under Section 123 seeking regularisation of occupants; on 20.06.1989 the Sub‑Divisional Officer ordered that the occupants' names be recorded in revenue records based on the Tehsildar’s report dated 24.05.1989 that houses existed before 30.06.1985. The appellants challenged the order by writ petition; the High Court dismissed the petition on 07.09.2007, holding that Section 123(2) created a "legal fiction" deeming the land settled with house owners in possession as on 30.06.1985 and that a Section 143 declaration did not exclude the operation of Chapter VII. The High Court also rejected the appellants' municipal‑limit plea, reasoning that they had not pleaded specific facts and had earlier benefitted from records showing the land as village property — the Court noted the appellants "could not be allowed to blow both hot and cold simultaneously." The High Court further held that allowing pending civil suits for eviction to continue would be an abuse of process and quashed them under Article 227. On appeal the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb these findings of fact and law, observed that the purchase by the appellants was "subject to the statutory remedy available to the occupants," and dismissed the appeals. No interim directions were granted; the Civil Appeal and connected SLPs were dismissed.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4587 OF 2009 (with S.L.P. (C) NOS. 3822-3823 OF 2023)
Case Title: Ram Narain (D) by Lrs. & Ors. v. The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. T. N. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 154