In a significant ruling on land rights and statutory protection for marginalised communities, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a civil appeal filed by Ram Narain’s legal heirs, affirming the regularisation of land occupied by members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh.
The Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld an earlier judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had ruled in favour of the occupants under Section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The dispute concerns a piece of land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswas in Shamli, District Muzaffarnagar.
Originally, the land was linked to one Khazan Singh, who had successfully defended his rights in earlier proceedings during the 1960s and 1970s. After his death, his grandsons sold the land to the appellants through a registered sale deed dated August 10, 1984.
Soon after the purchase, the buyers obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This declaration changed the land use from agricultural to residential (abadi). The appellants argued that once such a declaration was made, the provisions of the Act - including Section 123 - would no longer apply.
However, members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities had been living on the land since around 1976–77. According to a Tehsildar’s report, they had constructed houses there before June 30, 1985 - the cut-off date fixed under Section 123 for regularisation of occupation.
In 1989, the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered that the names of the occupants be recorded in revenue records. The landowners challenged this before the High Court, but their writ petition was dismissed in 2007. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
What the High Court Had Held
The High Court ruled that Section 123(2) of the Act creates what is known as a “legal fiction.” This means that if eligible persons had built houses on land before June 30, 1985, the law would treat the land as settled with them - even if they had originally occupied it without permission.
The Court also rejected the argument that the land fell within municipal limits. It noted that the land had consistently been recorded as village land in earlier proceedings, and the appellants could not take contradictory stands.
On the Section 143 declaration, the High Court observed that it only excluded certain chapters of the Act and did not bar the operation of Section 123. Importantly, the occupants were not parties to the Section 143 proceedings, making that declaration non-binding on them.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Supreme Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, the Bench noted that the controversy lay in a narrow compass. The primary question was whether the Section 143 declaration could defeat the statutory rights granted under Section 123.
The Court found that the appellants had purchased the land in 1984, at a time when the occupants were already in possession. “The purchase cannot be set up to defeat the occupants’ claim or right under Section 123,” the Bench observed.
It further noted that the occupants had been in possession since 1976 and that the appellants themselves had admitted in earlier pleadings that the respondents were in “forceful possession” and had constructed houses.
The judges made it clear that once the statutory conditions under Section 123 were satisfied - particularly construction before June 30, 1985 - the law deemed the land settled with the house owners. Whether the original possession was authorised or unauthorised did not matter.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return
Decision
Agreeing with the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal. The Court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to relief and that the regularisation of the occupants’ possession stood valid.
The connected Special Leave Petitions were also dismissed.
The judgment was delivered on February 25, 2026.
Case Title: Ram Narain (D) by LRs & Ors. v. The Sub Divisional Officer & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4587 of 2009
Decision Date: February 25, 2026
