Statutory regularisation of unauthorized occupation by eligible persons under Section 123 overrules non-agricultural declarations under Section 143.

The Appellants purchased 1 bigha 14 biswas of land in Plot No. 2362, Shamli, via a sale deed dated 10.08.1984.

The land was previously held by Khazan Singh, who was recognized as the Sirdar/tenure holder after protracted litigation ending in 1978.

Between 1976 and 1977, the private Respondents (agricultural labourers from SC/ST communities) occupied the land and built houses.

On 11.10.1984, the Appellants obtained a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act), converting the land use to "residential".

Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) issued an order on 20.06.1989 regularizing the Respondents’ possession under Section 123 of the Act, based on a Tehsildar’s report confirming they had built houses before the statutory cut-off date of 30.06.1985.

The Appellants’ writ petition challenging this order and the High Court’s subsequent dismissal (which also quashed pending civil suits via suo motu powers) led to this appeal.

Whether a declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act exempts the land from the operation of Section 123 of the same Act regarding the regularization of unauthorized occupants.

Whether the "legal fiction" of settlement of land with house owners under Section 123(2) applies to unauthorized occupants who take possession forcefully or as trespassers.

The Court applied Section 123 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which creates a legal fiction deeming land settled with the house owner if they belong to specified categories (like SC/ST) and have constructed a house on the land of a tenure holder before the cut-off date of 30.06.1985.

It also scrutinized Section 143, which allows for a declaration changing land use from agricultural to non-agricultural, thereby making Chapter VIII (Succession) inapplicable but not necessarily excluding other chapters of the Act.

The Court further referenced the non-obstante clause within Section 123(2) which overrides other provisions to effectuate socio-economic regularization.

The Court held that the declaration under Section 143 did not divest the revenue authorities of jurisdiction because Section 123 falls under Chapter VII, while a Section 143 declaration primarily excludes the application of Chapter VIII regarding succession.

Furthermore, the Respondents were not parties to the Section 143 proceedings, rendering that declaration non-binding upon them.

The Court emphasized that Section 123(2) employs a statutory "legal fiction" where it is immaterial whether the houses were built with consent or forcefully; the legislative intent was to settle the land with the occupants who met the temporal (pre-30.06.1985) and social criteria.

Since the Appellants admitted the Respondents had been in possession since 1976-1977, and the Tehsildar's report confirmed the existence of houses before the cut-off date, the statutory settlement was complete by operation of law.

The Appellants’ purchase in 1984 was subject to these existing statutory rights of the occupants.

It held that the Respondents became the legally recognized owners of the house sites by statutory fiction on 30.06.1985, regardless of the land's non-agricultural declaration under Section 143.

The Court concluded that since the Appellants’ predecessors did not have actual possession at the time of sale, the Appellants could not defeat the occupants' rights under Section 123.

All pending civil suits against the occupants were rightly quashed to prevent abuse of the judicial process.