Poongodi vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem and another Advocate - MADHANMOHAN A — 50/2022
Case under Nationalhighwaysact Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNSA010017622022
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
679/2022
Filing Date
22-03-2022
Registration No
50/2022
Registration Date
22-03-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Salem
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Poongodi
Adv. ANBU A S
Respondent(s)
The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem and another Advocate - MADHANMOHAN A
The Divisional Engineer (HW)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 11-02-2026 | IA Pending | |
| 23-01-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a land acquisition case (RTROP.50/2022) from Salem District Court dated 26.06.2024. The petitioner, a woman, challenged the acquisition of her 149 sq.m. land (purchased from her husband in 2015) and claimed entitlement to higher compensation, arguing the land had acquired commercial value. The Principal District Judge rejected her contentions, finding she failed to provide documentary evidence to support claims of commercial use, losses, or that compensation was inadequate, and dismissed her petition for enhanced compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a land acquisition case (RTROP.50/2022) from Salem District Court dated 26.06.2024. The petitioner, a woman, challenged the acquisition of her 149 sq.m. land (purchased from her husband in 2015) and claimed entitlement to higher compensation, arguing the land had acquired commercial value. The Principal District Judge rejected her contentions, finding she failed to provide documentary evidence to support claims of commercial use, losses, or that compensation was inadequate, and dismissed her petition for enhanced compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts