Kannadisamy and another vs Ramuthai and 3 others — 100468/2010
Case under Coalbearingareas(acquisitionanddevelopment)amendmentandvalidationact Section Order7Rule1. Status: IA Pending. Next hearing: 24th April 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNMD130001272010
Next Hearing
24th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Date
02-09-2010
Registration No
100468/2010
Registration Date
02-09-2010
Court
District Munsif Court, Thirumangalam
Judge
1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kannadisamy and another
Adv. K.P.S. Ilangovelrajan
Respondent(s)
Ramuthai and 3 others
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Munsif,Thirumangalam
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 10-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 07-04-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 30-03-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 24-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Original Case No. 468/2010 | Date: 06.09.2022 The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition challenging the subdivision of property (Survey No. 14/14) and the consequent alteration of land records. The court held that the Revenue Department Officer (RDO) acted properly in consolidating subdivided portions back into a single survey number and issuing a consolidated patta (land deed) to the rightful owner. The court rejected arguments that proper procedures were not followed and affirmed that administrative authorities possessed adequate jurisdiction to rectify the land records based on documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Original Case No. 468/2010 | Date: 06.09.2022 The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition challenging the subdivision of property (Survey No. 14/14) and the consequent alteration of land records. The court held that the Revenue Department Officer (RDO) acted properly in consolidating subdivided portions back into a single survey number and issuing a consolidated patta (land deed) to the rightful owner. The court rejected arguments that proper procedures were not followed and affirmed that administrative authorities possessed adequate jurisdiction to rectify the land records based on documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts