Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh

Facts

• Vidya Devi's land in Himachal Pradesh (HP) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894
• The acquisition proceedings had been pending for over five years before the LARR Act commenced on 1 January 2014
• Vidya Devi claimed that under Section 24(2) of the LARR Act, the acquisition had lapsed because compensation was not paid to her
• The State of HP contended that possession had been taken and compensation deposited in court
• The question arose as to who bears the burden of proof

Issue

1. Whether the burden of proving that the conditions of Section 24(2) are satisfied (non-payment and non-possession) lies on the landowner or the acquiring authority.

Held

• The burden of proof lies on the landowner claiming that the acquisition has lapsed
• The landowner must demonstrate that both conditions (non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession) are satisfied
• Possession means actual physical possession, not merely paper possession or deemed possession
• Payment includes deposit in court under Section 31 of the 1894 Act, which constitutes valid tender
• Where the State demonstrates that possession was taken (even if compensation remains unpaid), no lapse occurs

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 24(2) of the LARR Act 2013, the landowner who asserts that an old acquisition has lapsed bears the burden of proving both conditions: that compensation was not paid or deposited, and that physical possession of the land was not taken by the acquiring authority. Deposit of compensation in the government treasury or in court under the 1894 Act discharges the payment obligation, and actual physical possession by the State defeats the claim of lapse.