Sathiah (Died) vs The Special District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and 1 another Advocate - Thiru. P.Muniasamy — 59/2021
Case under Arbitrationandconciliationact Section 34(2). Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNRM010034922020
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
Filing Number
567/2020
Filing Date
03-12-2020
Registration No
59/2021
Registration Date
23-12-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sathiah (Died)
Adv. S. Jeyachandran
Anguthai (Died)
Stalin Sathiah
Shanthi
Senthilkumar
Respondent(s)
The Special District Revenue Officer, Ramanathapuram and 1 another Advocate - Thiru. P.Muniasamy
The Project Director, Karaikudi.
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
Court Order Summary Case: Ar.O.P. No.59/2021, Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram Date: 06.02.2025 Outcome: The court examined witness testimony (PW.1) regarding a land appropriation (arputhiyam) case. After cross-examination, the court found credible evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims regarding land valuations, market prices, and documentary evidence. The judge noted inconsistencies in the witness's statements but upheld the special district revenue officer's valuation assessment. The petition is allowed; the appropriation order for survey nos. 132/2A and 132/1B is validated, with market prices established three times higher than government guideline rates as claimed by the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Order Summary Case: Ar.O.P. No.59/2021, Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram Date: 06.02.2025 Outcome: The court examined witness testimony (PW.1) regarding a land appropriation (arputhiyam) case. After cross-examination, the court found credible evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims regarding land valuations, market prices, and documentary evidence. The judge noted inconsistencies in the witness's statements but upheld the special district revenue officer's valuation assessment. The petition is allowed; the appropriation order for survey nos. 132/2A and 132/1B is validated, with market prices established three times higher than government guideline rates as claimed by the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts