Anguchami (Died) vs Special District Revenue Officer , National High way, Ramanathapuram. Advocate - Thiru. P.Muniasamy — 42/2022
Case under Arbitrationandconciliationact Section 34(2). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNRM010018422019
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
411/2019
Filing Date
03-06-2019
Registration No
42/2022
Registration Date
13-07-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Anguchami (Died)
Adv. S. Jeyachandran
Mari
Ganeshkumar
Gopinath
Respondent(s)
Special District Revenue Officer , National High way, Ramanathapuram. Advocate - Thiru. P.Muniasamy
The project Director National Highways 49 National Highways authorities of India
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 09-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 22-01-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No: Ar.O.P. No.42/2022 | Date: 06.02.2025 | Court: Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding land valuation and survey matters. The witness was recalled and examined on various aspects including land boundaries, comparable property prices, government guideline rates versus market rates, and documentary evidence. The court found that the District Collector's valuation order was properly based on submitted deeds and documents, and the special district revenue officer's assessment was justified. No further inquiry was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No: Ar.O.P. No.42/2022 | Date: 06.02.2025 | Court: Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding land valuation and survey matters. The witness was recalled and examined on various aspects including land boundaries, comparable property prices, government guideline rates versus market rates, and documentary evidence. The court found that the District Collector's valuation order was properly based on submitted deeds and documents, and the special district revenue officer's assessment was justified. No further inquiry was ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts