Poongodi vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem and another Advocate - MADHANMOHAN A — 50/2022

Case under National Highways Act Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 03-Jun-2026 this date has passed

OP - Original Petition

CNR: TNSA010017622022

Filing Number

679/2022

Filing Date

22-Mar-2022

Registration No

50/2022

Registration Date

22-Mar-2022

Court

Principal District Court, Salem

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Last updated 08-May-2026

Acts & Sections

National Highways Act Section 34

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Poongodi

    Adv. ANBU A S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem and another Advocate - MADHANMOHAN A

  2. 2.The Divisional Engineer (HW)

Case History

  1. 03-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  5. 11-Feb-2026

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  6. 23-Jan-2026

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  7. 16-Dec-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  8. 26-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  9. 05-Nov-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  10. 27-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  11. 07-Oct-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  12. 16-Sep-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  13. 20-Aug-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  14. 23-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  15. 07-Jul-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  16. 17-Jun-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  17. 02-Jun-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  18. 16-Apr-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  19. 19-Mar-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  20. 03-Mar-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  21. 12-Feb-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  22. 21-Jan-2025

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  23. 18-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  24. 04-Dec-2024

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  25. 11-Nov-2024

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  26. 24-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  27. 14-Oct-2024

    IA Pending

    Principal District Judge

  28. 03-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  29. 20-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  30. 03-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  31. 28-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  32. 19-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  33. 30-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  34. 09-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  35. 26-Jun-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    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.

  36. 26-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  37. 11-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  38. 05-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  39. 24-Apr-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  40. 24-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  41. 03-Apr-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  42. 19-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  43. 06-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  44. 15-Feb-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  45. 24-Jan-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  46. 18-Dec-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  47. 16-Nov-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  48. 18-Oct-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  49. 29-Sep-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  50. 07-Sep-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  51. 05-Aug-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  52. 13-Jul-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  53. 14-Jun-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  54. 17-Apr-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  55. 06-Mar-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  56. 06-Feb-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  57. 22-Dec-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  58. 25-Nov-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  59. 18-Oct-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  60. 02-Sep-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  61. 04-Aug-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  62. 28-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  63. 03-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  64. 22-Apr-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  65. 22-Mar-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  66. 22-Mar-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 50/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case