Newsmakers

A 53-year-old farmer from Chhattisgarh has approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the land on which Raipur's Swami Vivekananda Airport stands originally belonged to his family. In his petition, the farmer has sought compensation of ₹3,500 crore from the government, alleging that the property was acquired during the World War II era without adequate settlement of ownership rights.

The petitioner, identified as Ashwini Bandhe, contends that a substantial portion of the airport, including the terminal building and adjoining landscaped areas, was constructed on land inherited by his family over generations. According to the plea, the disputed land was taken over by the then administration during the 1940s for military purposes and was later developed into the present-day airport.

Bandhe has claimed that his family possesses historical government records and revenue documents supporting their ownership of the land. The petition states that these records have been preserved for decades and form the basis of his legal claim. It further alleges that despite repeated representations before various authorities, the issue has remained unresolved, forcing him to seek relief from the country's highest court.

The matter is not new for the petitioner. According to the plea, Bandhe has been pursuing the dispute for nearly 35 years through different legal and administrative forums. He argues that successive governments failed to provide either fair compensation or a final resolution to the ownership dispute.

The petition also refers to historical documents that, according to the farmer, have been acknowledged by the state's Culture Department. He maintains that the records establish his family's title over the land and warrant judicial examination. Based on the current market value of the land, the strategic importance of the airport, and the alleged prolonged denial of compensation, Bandhe has sought damages amounting to ₹3,500 crore.

The Supreme Court is yet to examine the merits of the claim, and no observations have been made by the apex court on the authenticity of the documents or the compensation sought. The filing of the petition marks the latest development in a long-running land dispute that now enters a crucial legal stage. The government has not issued an official response to the petition so far. Legal experts note that the case could involve detailed scrutiny of historical land acquisition records, ownership documents, revenue entries, and compensation laws applicable during the period in question.

If admitted for detailed hearing, the case may have wider implications for historical land acquisition disputes involving public infrastructure projects. For now, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether the petition warrants further proceedings before considering the substantive claims raised by the petitioner.