Velu vs The Special District Revenue Officer (LAO), — 303/2022
Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 64(2)(b). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th March 2026.
OP - Original Petition
CNR: TNSA010065852022
Filing Number
2674/2022
Filing Date
14-Dec-2022
Registration No
303/2022
Registration Date
14-Dec-2022
Court
Principal District Court, Salem
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Last updated 19-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Velu
Adv. RAJU. P.
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Special District Revenue Officer (LAO),
Case History
-
25-Mar-2026
Next hearingPending
-
06-Mar-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
17-Feb-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
09-Jan-2026
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
09-Dec-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
19-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
17-Sep-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
25-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
09-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
06-Aug-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
19-Jul-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
25-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
10-Jun-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
22-Apr-2025
For further Proceedings
Principal District Judge
-
16-Apr-2025
For further Proceedings
Principal District Judge
-
24-Mar-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
28-Feb-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
06-Feb-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
09-Jan-2025
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
20-Dec-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
04-Dec-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
19-Nov-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
07-Nov-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
16-Oct-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
23-Sep-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
Summary: In case RTROP.No.303/2022 dated 23.09.2024, the Principal District Judge of Salem heard arguments from the petitioner regarding land acquisition compensation. The court examined testimonies and documentary evidence (including donation deed Ex.C6) regarding the petitioner's agricultural land and the compensation amount awarded. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions that inadequate compensation was provided and found no merit in the petition, dismissing it without further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
23-Sep-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
09-Sep-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
20-Aug-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
06-Aug-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
12-Jul-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
03-Jul-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
20-Jun-2024
Copy of DepositionView PDF
-
20-Jun-2024
Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
23-Apr-2024
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
28-Mar-2024
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
08-Mar-2024
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
20-Feb-2024
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
03-Feb-2024
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
09-Jan-2024
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
07-Dec-2023
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
08-Nov-2023
Enquiry
Principal District Judge
-
06-Oct-2023
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
05-Sep-2023
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
03-Aug-2023
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
12-Jul-2023
Counter
Principal District Judge
-
12-Jun-2023
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
12-Apr-2023
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
04-Mar-2023
Written Statement
Principal District Judge
-
27-Jan-2023
Service Pending-Notice
Principal District Judge
-
14-Dec-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
14-Dec-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 303/2022
Summary: In case RTROP.No.303/2022 dated 23.09.2024, the Principal District Judge of Salem heard arguments from the petitioner regarding land acquisition compensation. The court examined testimonies and documentary evidence (including donation deed Ex.C6) regarding the petitioner's agricultural land and the compensation amount awarded. The court rejected the petitioner's contentions that inadequate compensation was provided and found no merit in the petition, dismissing it without further hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts