High Court sees no prima facie merit in plea for higher compensation for Kanhan bridge land

The High Court has indicated that a petition over compensation for land acquired for the main Kanhan river bridge on the Nagpur national highway shows no merit at first sight. The petition was filed by Krishna Agrawal, who sought a higher rate of compensation.

The hearing was held before Justice Anil Pansare and Justice Nivedita Mehta. The judges observed that the petitioner has already been paid fair compensation in accordance with law.

Agrawal was present in court during the hearing and said he wished to change his lawyer. The court accepted this and discharged the lawyer from the case. The hearing was adjourned, with the petitioner permitted to make other legal arrangements before the next date.

On the court's direction, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed an additional affidavit giving full details of the compensation paid. After examining the record, the court said the petitioner had received appropriate compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the government resolution of May 12, 2015.

The court also recorded that the total amount received by the petitioner is more than the compensation paid to the railways and the university. The affidavit stated that the railway and university land was not acquired at all. It was taken on lease for 35 years and transferred under a memorandum of understanding (MoU). The High Court therefore held that the petitioner cannot claim compensation equal to that given to the railways or the university.

The petitioner had argued that on June 1, 2025, the respondents valued the land of the railways and Nagpur University at Rs 3,000 per square metre. He said that when it came to his own land, the committee applied slab-based rates: 100 per cent of the market rate for plots up to 500 square metres, but 10 per cent of the market rate for areas between 501 and 2,000 square metres.

On this basis, the petitioner cited the judgment in Muralidhar vs State of Maharashtra. He sought compensation at Rs 3,000 per square metre and alleged unequal treatment. At the next hearing, it will be seen what he puts before the court with his new legal arrangement.