LLand Acquision officer and District Revenue Offi vs Thiru. Chinnapaiyan, — 100008/2016

Case under Land Acquisition Act Section Undersection30ofLAOPAct. Status: IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending. Next hearing: 15th July 2026.

IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending Next hearing 15-Jul-2026 in 1 week

LAOP - Land Acquisition Original Petition

CNR: TNSA070000182016

Registration No

100008/2016

Registration Date

05-Jan-2016

Court

Sub Court, Sankari

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Last updated 28-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition Act Section Undersection30ofLAOPAct

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.LLand Acquision officer and District Revenue Offi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Thiru. Chinnapaiyan,

Case History

  1. 15-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 08-Apr-2026

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  6. 23-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 02-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  10. 25-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 18-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  13. 09-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 02-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  15. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 26-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 11-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  18. 27-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 14-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 07-Oct-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 20-Sep-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 19-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  23. 02-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  24. 07-Apr-2025

    Restored

    Subordinate Judge

  25. 07-Apr-2025

    Admission

    Subordinate Judge

  26. 07-Apr-2025

    Admission

    Subordinate Judge

  27. 10-Jan-2017

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: 100008/2016 The court closed the land acquisition reference proceedings after finding the respondent (Chinnapaiyan) repeatedly absent and failed to file a claim statement despite sufficient opportunity. The court ordered the entire compensation amount for 0.0839 sq. mtr of acquired dry land to be deposited with the Subordinate Judge, Sankari under Sections 22(3) and 23 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 for disposal according to law, since ownership could not be determined without documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  28. 10-Jan-2017

    Disposed

    Subordinate Judge

  29. 13-Dec-2016

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  30. 04-Oct-2016

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  31. 09-Aug-2016

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  32. 05-Jul-2016

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  33. 26-Apr-2016

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  34. 15-Mar-2016

    For further Proceedings

    Subordinate Judge

  35. 15-Feb-2016

    Service Pending

    Subordinate Judge

  36. 05-Jan-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. —

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100008/2016

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 100008/2016 The court closed the land acquisition reference proceedings after finding the respondent (Chinnapaiyan) repeatedly absent and failed to file a claim statement despite sufficient opportunity. The court ordered the entire compensation amount for 0.0839 sq. mtr of acquired dry land to be deposited with the Subordinate Judge, Sankari under Sections 22(3) and 23 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 for disposal according to law, since ownership could not be determined without documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case