Muthulakshmi and other vs District Collector Dindigul — 97/2022

Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 06-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OP - Original Petition

CNR: TNDG010035802022

Filing Number

12379/2022

Filing Date

22-Jul-2022

Registration No

97/2022

Registration Date

22-Jul-2022

Court

Principal District Court, Dindugul

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Muthulakshmi and other

    Adv. A.Kalyanasundaram

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.District Collector Dindigul

Case History

  1. 06-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  4. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  5. 29-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary Case No.: LAOP.No.97/2022 | Date: 29.01.2026 | Court: Principal District Judge, Dindigul The court recorded the cross-examination of the opposing party regarding disputed land in Poosaripatti village (Survey No. 248/2 and 231/3). The witness testified about the land's status, presence of trees, and distances to neighboring properties. The court found that proper market value was not awarded for the land and held that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. No further hearing was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 29-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  7. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  8. 13-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  9. 25-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  10. 25-Sep-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  11. 25-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 13-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 10-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 11-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  15. 04-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  16. 13-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  17. 05-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  18. 19-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  19. 04-Dec-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  20. 07-Nov-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  21. 25-Sep-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  22. 21-Aug-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  23. 10-Jul-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  24. 24-Apr-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  25. 13-Mar-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  26. 24-Jan-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  27. 14-Dec-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  28. 15-Nov-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  29. 05-Oct-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  30. 18-Aug-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  31. 14-Jul-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  32. 02-Jun-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  33. 16-Mar-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  34. 31-Jan-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  35. 09-Jan-2023

    Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

    Principal District Judge

  36. 08-Dec-2022

    Vakalat / Memo of Appearance

    Principal District Judge

  37. 15-Oct-2022

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge

  38. 05-Sep-2022

    Issue of Service

    Principal District Judge

  39. 22-Jul-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 22-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 97/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No.: LAOP.No.97/2022 | Date: 29.01.2026 | Court: Principal District Judge, Dindigul The court recorded the cross-examination of the opposing party regarding disputed land in Poosaripatti village (Survey No. 248/2 and 231/3). The witness testified about the land's status, presence of trees, and distances to neighboring properties. The court found that proper market value was not awarded for the land and held that the petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. No further hearing was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case