Govindarajan vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem and another Advocate - MADHANMOHAN A — 51/2022

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: TNSA010017632022

Filing Number

680/2022

Filing Date

22-Mar-2022

Registration No

51/2022

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.Govindarajan

    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 Engieer (HW), Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project-II, Salem

    Adv. MADHANMOHAN A

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

    Evidence

    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

    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.

  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. 22-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  40. 03-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  41. 19-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  42. 06-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  43. 15-Feb-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  44. 24-Jan-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  45. 18-Dec-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  46. 16-Nov-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  47. 18-Oct-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  48. 29-Sep-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  49. 07-Sep-2023

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  50. 05-Aug-2023

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  51. 13-Jul-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  52. 14-Jun-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  53. 17-Apr-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  54. 06-Mar-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  55. 06-Feb-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  56. 22-Dec-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  57. 25-Nov-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  58. 18-Oct-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  59. 02-Sep-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  60. 04-Aug-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  61. 28-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  62. 03-Jun-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  63. 22-Apr-2022

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  64. 22-Mar-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  65. 22-Mar-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 51/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case