Nagpur: In a significant ruling, a special court designated for MIHAN (Multi-modal International Cargo Hub and Airport at Nagpur) has ordered enhanced compensation for land acquired in Chinchbhavan village. The court ruled that the compensation given for Survey No. 91/2/2, measuring 0.59 hectares (5,900 sq. meters), was inadequate and must be revised to ₹1,846 per sq. meter, based on the prevailing market rate.
The order was passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-3 A.P. Kulkarni of the special MIHAN court, following a petition filed by the Agrawal family—original landholders—who claimed that the compensation declared on June 30, 2008, was insufficient.
Gold Rate
24 May 2025
The court further ruled that under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioners are entitled to an additional 30% compensation over the market value. Under Section 6(2), they are also eligible for 12% annual interest from the date of notification to the date of award. However, claims for compensation for trees and other fixtures were rejected.
Award Declared After 8 Years
The Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (MADC), through its Executive Engineer, had proposed the acquisition of 146.67 hectares of land in Mouza Chinchbhavan for an international cargo terminal and multi-modal hub. The proposal was sent to the Maharashtra Government on November 30, 2002. On January 4, 2002, MADC was appointed as the nodal agency, with authority to disburse compensation. The acquisition process began soon after, but the award was declared only on June 30, 2008—eight years later.
According to the petitioners, the land acquired was highly fertile and regularly yielded 3–4 crops annually. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer termed it as “barren land” in the award, which the petitioners argued was factually incorrect, asserting that not a single inch of the land was infertile.
‘Yellow Belt’ Land Overlooked, Say Petitioners
The petition also pointed out that in the revised development plan for Nagpur city prepared by the Nagpur Improvement Trust in 1989, the land was designated under the “Yellow Belt,” indicating its suitability for non-agricultural and residential purposes.
Furthermore, adjacent land had reportedly been sold at ₹2.55 crore per acre before the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners argued that the compensation should have been considered at ₹3.75 crore per acre (₹9.38 crore per hectare). They also claimed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer ignored registered sale agreements—especially those involving the Patel family—which documented sales at ₹2.55 crore per acre, a crucial benchmark that was overlooked.
