{"id":388862,"date":"2026-06-30T12:30:27","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T07:00:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=388862"},"modified":"2026-06-30T12:22:01","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T06:52:01","slug":"sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/","title":{"rendered":"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a civil appeal arising from consolidation proceedings concerning the validity of a registered sale deed executed in 1957 and the recording of revenue entries, a Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra*<\/span> and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.<\/span>, set aside the concurrent judgments of the High Court and the consolidation authorities, holding that a transfer allegedly made in contravention of Section 154<\/a>, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950<\/a><\/span>, was not rendered void ipso facto<\/span> under the statutory regime then in force.<\/p>\n

Observing that the 1982 Amendments to Sections 166 and 167 of the Act introduced substantive changes and could not be applied retrospectively to invalidate accrued rights, the Court further held that a registered sale deed carries a statutory presumption of genuineness and due execution, which cannot be displaced by inconsequential discrepancies relating to an attesting witness in the absence of any plea or proof of fraud, forgery, coercion or impersonation. The Court consequently directed that the appellants’ names be recorded in the revenue records.<\/p>\n

Background<\/p>\n

The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 15 bigha, 11 biswa and 0 biswansi situated in Village Nasirpur Kalan, Haridwar, which the appellants claimed to have purchased through a registered sale deed dated 4 June 1957 while they were minors. According to the appellants, possession of the land was delivered to them upon execution of the sale deed, and they continued to remain in possession thereafter. Although their names were mutated in the revenue records in 1984 following proceedings under Section 34<\/a>, Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901<\/a>, their names were not reflected during the subsequent consolidation operations initiated in 1991. This led the appellants to file objections under Section 9-A<\/a>, Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953<\/a> seeking correction of the revenue records.<\/p>\n

Initially, the Consolidation Officer allowed the appellants’ claim ex parte on the strength of the earlier mutation order. However, upon an application by the original tenure-holders, the ex parte order was recalled and the matter was reopened for adjudication. During the proceedings, one of the vendors entered into a compromise acknowledging the sale and the appellants’ possession, pursuant to which the appellants’ names were directed to be recorded. Since the compromise was not executed by all the co-tenure holders and was subsequently disputed, the consolidation proceedings continued on merits.<\/p>\n

After recording oral and documentary evidence, the Consolidation Officer rejected the appellants’ claim in 1999, holding that the execution of the 1957 sale deed had not been satisfactorily proved owing to inconsistencies in the evidence relating to its attesting witness and the absence of reliable supporting material. The appellate and revisional authorities affirmed these findings and further held that the transaction was hit by Section 154<\/a>, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950<\/a>, rendering the sale deed void. The appellants’ writ petition challenging the concurrent findings was also dismissed by the High Court, which upheld the conclusion that the sale deed was neither duly proved nor legally valid, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court observed that although its jurisdiction under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> is ordinarily limited where concurrent findings of fact have been recorded, interference is warranted where such findings suffer from perversity or manifest illegality. Examining the 2 principal grounds on which the appellants’ claim had been rejected, namely:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    that the sale deed dated 4 June 1957 was void under Section 154<\/a>, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950<\/a>; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    that its execution had not been proved due to discrepancies concerning the attesting witness — the Court found both conclusions legally unsustainable.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Relying on Zile Singh v. State of Haryana<\/span>, (2004) 8 SCC 1<\/a>, the Court reiterated that a statute is presumed to be prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective, and that this presumption against retrospectivity applies with particular force where the object of the amendment is to affect vested rights or impose new burdens. The Court noted that retrospective operation may ordinarily be inferred only where the amendment is declaratory, clarificatory, curative, or intended to explain an obvious omission in the prior law, none of which described the 1982 amendment to Sections 166 and 167.<\/p>\n

    The Court held that under the statutory regime prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed, a transfer in contravention of Section 154 was not rendered void ipso facto<\/span>. Such a transfer merely exposed the transferee to the consequence of ejectment upon a suit instituted by the Gaon Sabha under Section 163 of the Act. Since no such proceedings were ever initiated within the prescribed limitation period, the sale deed could not subsequently be treated as void. The Court further observed that the omission of Section 163 and the simultaneous expansion of Sections 166 and 167 by the 1982 Amendment introduced a substantive change in the legal consequences attached to such transfers. In the absence of any express or implied legislative intent, the amended provisions could not operate retrospectively so as to invalidate a transfer executed in 1957 or divest accrued rights.<\/p>\n

    On the competence of the consolidation authorities, the Court reiterated that while they possess exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate title during consolidation proceedings, they cannot disregard a registered instrument unless it is void in law. Drawing a distinction between void and voidable transactions, the Court held that a registered sale deed carrying legal effect cannot be ignored unless it is first set aside by a competent court where such cancellation is required.<\/p>\n

    The Court further held that the registered sale deed carried a statutory presumption of genuineness and due execution. Mere discrepancies regarding the description of the attesting witness, whose testimony was recorded nearly 38 years after the execution of the document, were held to be wholly inconsequential and incapable of dislodging that presumption. Significantly, the respondents had neither pleaded nor proved fraud, forgery, coercion or impersonation, nor had they elicited any material contradiction during the witness’s cross-examination. The Court observed that attestation is not a statutory requirement for the validity of a sale deed and, therefore, minor inconsistencies concerning an attesting witness could not justify rejection of an otherwise valid registered conveyance.<\/p>\n

    Decision<\/p>\n

    Holding that the High Court and the consolidation authorities had committed manifest error in treating the sale deed as void and in disregarding it on immaterial discrepancies, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and directed that the appellants’ names be recorded in the revenue records.<\/p>\n

    Also Read:<\/span> Authorities cannot be punished for inaction in exercise of power within the prescribed period in the absence of statutory bar: Supreme Court | SCC Times<\/a><\/p>\n

    [Sarafat Ali<\/span> v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar<\/span>, Civil Appeal No. 8705 of 2026, decided on 23-5-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgement authored by: Prashant Kumar Mishra<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Supreme Court rules a 1957 registered sale deed is not void under pre-1982 UPZA & LR Act, restores appellants’ revenue entries, and clarifies Section 154<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67541,"featured_media":388863,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[108403,90557,34505,37869,108402,5363,56289],"class_list":["post-388862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-consolidation-proceedings","tag-justice-n-v-anjaria","tag-justice-prashant-kumar-mishra","tag-registered-sale-deed","tag-s-154-uttar-pradesh-zamindari-abolition-and-land-reforms-act-1950","tag-supreme-court","tag-validity-of-sale-deed"],"yoast_head":"\nSC: 1957 Sale Deed Not Void Under Pre-1982 UPZA Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that 1957 Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Declared Void Under Pre-1982 Section 154 of UPZA Act\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court held that 1957 Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Declared Void Under Pre-1982 Section 154 of UPZA Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-30T07:00:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Malika Bhola\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"headline\":\"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-30T07:00:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1100,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"consolidation proceedings\",\"Justice N.V. Anjaria\",\"Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra\",\"Registered Sale Deed\",\"S. 154 Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950\",\"Supreme Court\",\"validity of Sale Deed\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"SC: 1957 Sale Deed Not Void Under Pre-1982 UPZA Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-30T07:00:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court held that 1957 Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Declared Void Under Pre-1982 Section 154 of UPZA Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 154 UPZA Act sale deed\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/30\\\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1\",\"name\":\"Malika Bhola\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Malika Bhola\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/malika-bhola\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC: 1957 Sale Deed Not Void Under Pre-1982 UPZA Act | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court held that 1957 Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Declared Void Under Pre-1982 Section 154 of UPZA Act","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court","og_description":"Supreme Court held that 1957 Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Declared Void Under Pre-1982 Section 154 of UPZA Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-06-30T07:00:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Malika Bhola","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Malika Bhola"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Malika Bhola","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"headline":"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court","datePublished":"2026-06-30T07:00:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/"},"wordCount":1100,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp","keywords":["consolidation proceedings","Justice N.V. Anjaria","Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra","Registered Sale Deed","S. 154 Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950","Supreme Court","validity of Sale Deed"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/","name":"SC: 1957 Sale Deed Not Void Under Pre-1982 UPZA Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp","datePublished":"2026-06-30T07:00:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1"},"description":"Supreme Court held that 1957 Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Declared Void Under Pre-1982 Section 154 of UPZA Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 154 UPZA Act sale deed"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/06\/30\/sc-1957-sale-deed-not-void-under-pre-1982-upza-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"1957 Registered Sale Deed Not Void for Alleged Violation of S. 154, U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act; 1982 Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/45db260c9b47eac21ba4813c9a379af1","name":"Malika Bhola","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4ad40b34c562bedc415034fbcc0dc38433e5ef0c1f736b1961a9ebb53b5a3a65?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Malika Bhola"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/malika-bhola\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Section-154-UPZA-Act-sale-deed.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388862","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67541"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=388862"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388862\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":388866,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388862\/revisions\/388866"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/388863"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=388862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=388862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=388862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}