From Agricultural to Civil: Supreme Court Clarifies That a Subsequent Section 143 UPZALR Declaration Confers Civil-Court Jurisdiction

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mahesh Chand (Dead) through LR(s) v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 1005) settles a long-standing procedural tangle concerning jurisdictional disputes between Civil Courts and Revenue Courts under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“UPZALR Act”). The litigation—stretching back more than half a century—centred on a landlord’s suit for eviction and arrears of rent against tenants who operated a petrol pump on the disputed land.

Key issues before the Court included:

Whether a Civil Court loses jurisdiction if, on the date of filing, the land is still recorded as agricultural, even though it is actually used for a commercial (non-agricultural) purpose.
Whether a declaration under Section 143 of the UPZALR Act, made during the pendency of litigation, can cure the jurisdictional objection retrospectively.
Whether failure of the revenue authorities to register the Section 143 declaration under Section 145 vitiates its legal effect.

The appellant–landlord succeeded in the Trial Court but lost before the First Appellate Court and partially before the High Court, which ordered return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The Supreme Court has now reversed the High Court, holding that the subsequent declaration converted the land’s character, thereby validating Civil-Court jurisdiction and rendering any return of the plaint unnecessary.

II. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Rajesh Bindal, writing for a two-judge bench, allowed the appeal and laid down four principal holdings:

Continuing Proceedings Doctrine: An appeal is a continuation of the suit; hence courts must consider subsequent events that go to the root of the matter, including jurisdictional facts arising after the plaint was filed.
Effect of Section 143 Declaration: Once competent revenue authorities finally declare the land to be non-agricultural under Section 143 (even during litigation), Civil Courts—not Revenue Courts—possess jurisdiction over tenancy and eviction disputes.
Non-Registration Under Section 145: Registration of a Section 143 declaration is an administrative duty of the Sub-Registrar; non-registration does not deprive the declaration of efficacy nor can litigants be penalised for bureaucratic lapse.
Remand for Merits: Because the First Appellate Court disposed of the appeal solely on jurisdiction without addressing merits, the matter is remitted to that court to decide all issues within six months.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Considered

Although the judgment itself does not exhaustively catalogue past cases, the reasoning is built upon, and consistent with, several Supreme Court authorities:

Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, (1975) 1 SCC 770 – established that courts must take judicial notice of subsequent developments to shorten litigation.
N. Sukumaran Nair v. P. Narayanan, (1996) 4 SCC 434 – reiterated the doctrine that appeal is a continuation of the suit.
Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh, (2002) 6 SCC 416 – dealt specifically with Section 143 UPZALR, holding that once a declaration is granted, land ceases to be ‘agricultural’ for purposes of jurisdiction.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 – distinguished jurisdiction of Civil Courts from that of specialised forums.
K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Development Consultant Ltd., (2008) 8 SCC 564 – on courts’ power to mould relief in light of subsequent events.

The Supreme Court synthesised these decisions to buttress its conclusion that returning the plaint would elevate form over substance.

B. Legal Reasoning

Character of the Land: The tenancy agreement of 31 July 1970 explicitly let the land for a commercial petrol pump. The Court treated this contemporaneous document as objective evidence of non-agricultural use.
Section 143 Declaration: Initial approval (10 Dec 1975) and final order (14 Mar 1986) under Section 143 altered the legal regime governing the plot. Once the declaration attained finality, the bar on Civil-Court jurisdiction imposed by Section 331 UPZALR vanished.
Appeals as Continuation: Echoing the doctrine from Pasupuleti, the Court held that the First Appellate Court and High Court erred by freezing the jurisdictional enquiry at the date of the plaint. “Subsequent events that go to the root of the matter must be accounted for to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.”
Section 145 Non-Registration: The statutory scheme places the registration duty on revenue officers; therefore, the declaration’s validity is not contingent on the act of registration. The Court labelled respondent’s argument “of no consequence.”
Practical Administration of Justice: By ordering remand with a six-month timeline, the Court balanced finality with fairness, ensuring that half-century-old litigation reaches substantive resolution swiftly.

C. Likely Impact

Jurisdictional Clarity: Trial and appellate courts in Uttar Pradesh can confidently retain suits where a Section 143 declaration surfaces mid-proceedings, avoiding ritualistic returns of plaints.
Administrative Accountability: Revenue officials’ failure to register declarations will no longer derail civil litigation; litigants need not chase bureaucratic compliance.
Reduction of Multiplicity: The decision discourages strategic pleas aimed at shunting cases between forums and encourages adjudication on merits.
Commercial Tenancies on Agricultural Records: Landlords and tenants in petrol pumps, warehouses, solar farms, etc., will benefit from the clarity that actual use and subsequent declarations override archaic land-record entries.
Guidance to High Courts: When exercising second-appeal jurisdiction, High Courts must actively probe subsequent events rather than mechanically apply initial jurisdictional bars.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 143 UPZALR Act: A discretionary power enabling revenue authorities to declare that specific plots, though recorded as ‘agricultural’, may be used for non-agricultural purposes. Once issued, the land legally changes character.
Section 145 UPZALR Act: Mandates the Assistant Collector to forward a certified copy of any Section 143 declaration to the Sub-Registrar for free registration. Crucially, the statute does not make the declaration’s validity conditional on registration.
Order VII Rule 10 CPC: Empowers a court to return a plaint to be filed in the proper forum when it lacks jurisdiction. The present judgment narrows its application where subsequent events cure the jurisdictional defect.
Appeal as Continuation of Suit: The legal notion that appellate proceedings are not a new action but a re-examination of the original suit, allowing consideration of new facts that emerged after the decree.
Mesne Profits: Compensation for unlawful occupation of property—akin to rent for the period the landlord was wrongly deprived of possession.

V. Conclusion

Mahesh Chand v. Brijesh Kumar is a pragmatic judgment that prioritises substantive justice over technical formalism. By ruling that a Section 143 declaration—even if issued during litigation—shifts jurisdiction to Civil Courts, and that non-registration under Section 145 is no impediment, the Supreme Court removed a recurrent stumbling block in U.P. land litigation. The decision will streamline disputes where land records lag behind commercial reality, reduce forum-shopping, and compel lower courts to engage with the merits rather than punt cases on procedural grounds.

The remand order signals the Court’s impatience with protracted proceedings and underscores its commitment to expeditious justice. Going forward, litigants and courts alike must remain alert to subsequent jurisdictional-altering events and give effect to them without multiplying suits.

“From Agricultural to Civil: Supreme Court Clarifies That a Subsequent Section 143 UPZALR Declaration Confers Civil-Court Jurisdiction”