Govindarajan vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem and another Advocate - MADHANMOHAN A — 51/2022
Case under Nationalhighwaysact Section 34. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNSA010017632022
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
680/2022
Filing Date
22-03-2022
Registration No
51/2022
Registration Date
22-03-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Salem
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Govindarajan
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 Engieer (HW), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem
Adv. MADHANMOHAN A
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-01-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
RTROP.51/2022 – Principal District Judge, Salem (26.06.2024) The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claims for additional compensation regarding acquired agricultural land used for poultry farming. The court found that proper compensation was already calculated and awarded based on the land's market value at the time of acquisition in 2020, and rejected the petitioner's contentions of lost income and livelihood damages due to lack of supporting documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
RTROP.51/2022 – Principal District Judge, Salem (26.06.2024) The petition is dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claims for additional compensation regarding acquired agricultural land used for poultry farming. The court found that proper compensation was already calculated and awarded based on the land's market value at the time of acquisition in 2020, and rejected the petitioner's contentions of lost income and livelihood damages due to lack of supporting 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