Thangamani and another vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LA) — 209/2022
Case under Landacquisitionact Section 64(2)(b). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNSA010050212022
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
2114/2022
Filing Date
12-09-2022
Registration No
209/2022
Registration Date
12-09-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Salem
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thangamani and another
Adv. GANAPATHI.R
Devarajan
Respondent(s)
The Special District Revenue Officer (LA)
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 20-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 25-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 16-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending | |
| 03-02-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
Interim Orders
PETITION DISMISSED RTROP No. 209/2022 | Salem District Court | 02.07.2025 The Principal District Judge dismissed the petitioner's revision petition challenging land acquisition for highway expansion on the Omalur-Paramathi-Vellore road. The court rejected claims that the petitioner's livelihood was affected and held that compensation was properly determined using government guidelines based on 2017-2020 price data. The land acquisition proceedings, survey notification, and valuation were found to be in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
PETITION DISMISSED RTROP No. 209/2022 | Salem District Court | 02.07.2025 The Principal District Judge dismissed the petitioner's revision petition challenging land acquisition for highway expansion on the Omalur-Paramathi-Vellore road. The court rejected claims that the petitioner's livelihood was affected and held that compensation was properly determined using government guidelines based on 2017-2020 price data. The land acquisition proceedings, survey notification, and valuation were found to be in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts