Reviewed case brief
Vidya Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh
(2020) 2 SCC 569
Decided alongside Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal, the Supreme Court clarified the burden of proof under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR Act) 2013. The landowner must establish both that compensation was not paid
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Year
- 2020
- Subjects
- Land Laws
- Reviewed
- 2026-06-18
Rule established
For Section 24(2) of the LARR Act 2013 to apply, the landowner must establish that physical possession was not taken and compensation was not paid; the burden is on the landowner
Facts
- Vidya Devi's land in Himachal Pradesh (HP) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894
Issues
Held
- The **burden of proof** lies on the landowner claiming that the acquisition has lapsed
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.
How to use it in an exam
- Companion case to Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal (2020) for Section 24(2) analysis
Editorial source
(2020) 2 SCC 569; verified via SCC Online
Educational summary only. Read the reported judgment or an authorised law report before relying on the case professionally.