No Duty Cast On Landowner To Get Declaration Made By Competent Authority U/S.143 Of UPZALR Act Registered: Supreme Court

Tulip Kanth

20 Aug 2025 3:15 PM IST

The appellant landlord had filed the appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the High Court in the Second Appeal.

While directing expeditious disposal of an appeal in a 50-year-old civil case, the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZALR Act) to the Sub Registrar. The Apex Court made it clear that no duty is cast on the landowner to get the same registered.

The appellant landlord had filed the appeal before the Apex Court impugning the judgment of the High Court in the Second Appeal.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan held, “As per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act to the Sub Registrar to do the needful. Such registration is to be made free of cost notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Meaning thereby, no duty is cast on the appellant to get the same registered. Apparently, it is merely a procedure.”

Senior Advocate Jitendra Mohan Sharma represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate S.R. Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties vide which a portion of land was taken on rent by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents at the rate of Rs 150 per month. The land was taken for the purpose of setting up of Indian Oil petrol pump by the predecessor-in-interest. The aforesaid tenancy agreement was duly registered. As the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents failed to pay rent regularly, a suit for eviction was filed by the appellant in 1974. In the aforesaid suit, an application was filed by the predecessor-in-interest contending that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction but the same was rejected by the Trial Court. After trial, the suit for possession and arrears of rent filed by the appellant, was decreed. Aggrieved against the same, both parties preferred appeals before the First Appellate Court.

Setting aside the Trial Court’s decree, the First Appellate Court, referring to various provisions of the UPZALR Act, opined that the land in question was not declared non-agricultural in terms of Section 143 of the UPZALR Act. Hence, the Civil Court would not have jurisdiction. The appellant’s appeal claiming an increase in mesne profit was dismissed. The second appeal before the High Court was allowed in part. The judgment of the First Appellate Court was substituted by an order, under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, directing the return of the plaint to the appellant for presentation before the appropriate forum. It was held there being no declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act for the land in question to be non-agricultural, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The appeal before the Apex Court challenged this judgment.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted, “There is no quarrel on the proposition of law that appeal is continuance of proceedings and any developments which may take place during pendency of the appeal or suit, going to the root of the case, can always be taken notice of to avoid multiplicity of litigation.”

The Bench found that from the very beginning, vide a registered tenancy agreement, the land was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for non-agricultural purposes. On the date when the First Appellate Court passed the judgment, which was upheld by the High Court the year 2024, the land in question had already been declared as non-agricultural under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act. Thus, the Bench held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Highlighting the fact that as per Section 145 of the UPZALR Act, it is the duty of the Assistant Collector-in-charge of the Sub-Division to forward a copy of the declaration made under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act to the Sub Registrar to do the needful, the Bench held that the appellant couldn’t be deprived of the benefits of the declaration so made merely on account of deficiency by the officers.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same. Setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Bench remitted the case back to the First Appellate Court. “Litigation being more than 50 years old, we direct the First Appellate Court to hear and decide the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Mahesh Chand (Dead) Through Lr(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1005)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR Ajit Sharma, Advocates Kanchan Kumar, Akshat Sharma, Amrit Pradhan, Yuvraj Singh Solnki, Lareb Habib Ansari, Anant Ram Mishra, Sandeep Singh

Respondent: Senior Advocate S.R. Singh, Advocates Sushant Kumar Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Mangal Prasad, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Anurag Singh, Radha Rajput, AOR Ankur Yadav, AOR Priya Puri, Sachin Dubey, Sharad Kumar Puri, Advocate Vibhav Srivastava

Click here to read/download Judgment

Related Tags :

Tulip Kanth

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.