Thangaraj vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LAO) and another — 189/2023

Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 64(2)(b). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 17th July 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 17-Jul-2026

OP - Original Petition

CNR: TNSA010041812023

Filing Number

1517/2023

Filing Date

23-Aug-2023

Registration No

189/2023

Registration Date

23-Aug-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Salem

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Last updated 28-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition Act Section 64(2)(b)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Thangaraj

    Adv. AYYANDURAI.G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LAO) and another

  2. 2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways)

Case History

  1. 17-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  5. 04-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  7. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  8. 03-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  9. 11-Nov-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case 189/2023 Summary Petitioner Thangaraj's testimony in this land acquisition dispute reveals cross-examination regarding 15 cents of agricultural land in Pappampatty village acquired for highway construction. The court found that compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was based on market values from three years prior to the 2020 acquisition notification, and rejected Thangaraj's post-acquisition valuations as irrelevant. Petition dismissed on November 11, 2025; the land officer's compensation determination was upheld as valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  10. 11-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  11. 05-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 14-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 11-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 14-Aug-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 14-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  16. 18-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  17. 18-Jun-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  18. 23-Apr-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  19. 21-Mar-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  20. 26-Feb-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  21. 30-Jan-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  22. 08-Jan-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  23. 09-Dec-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  24. 08-Nov-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  25. 18-Oct-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  26. 19-Sep-2024

    Enquiry

    Principal District Judge

  27. 23-Aug-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  28. 05-Aug-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  29. 04-Jul-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  30. 04-Jun-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  31. 06-Apr-2024

    Counter

    Principal District Judge

  32. 20-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  33. 01-Mar-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  34. 08-Feb-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  35. 08-Jan-2024

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  36. 28-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  37. 07-Nov-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  38. 27-Sep-2023

    Written Statement

    Principal District Judge

  39. 23-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  40. 23-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 189/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case 189/2023 Summary Petitioner Thangaraj's testimony in this land acquisition dispute reveals cross-examination regarding 15 cents of agricultural land in Pappampatty village acquired for highway construction. The court found that compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was based on market values from three years prior to the 2020 acquisition notification, and rejected Thangaraj's post-acquisition valuations as irrelevant. Petition dismissed on November 11, 2025; the land officer's compensation determination was upheld as valid. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case