Lakshmi Kanthammal and 14 Others vs The Special Thasildhar, Advocate - Government Pleader — 126/2004
Case under --- Section 18L.A.Act. Status: Amendment. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
LAOP - Land Acquisition Original Petition
CNR: TNTR080000022004
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
126/2004
Filing Date
22-06-2004
Registration No
126/2004
Registration Date
22-06-2004
Court
II. Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee
Judge
1-Additional District and Sessions Judge - II
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lakshmi Kanthammal and 14 Others
Adv. C.Mani
Respondent(s)
The Special Thasildhar, Advocate - Government Pleader
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Additional District and Sessions Judge - II
Amendment
Amendment
Amendment
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Amendment |
| 27-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 13-02-2026 | Amendment |
| 06-02-2026 | IA Pending |
| 02-01-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary: The 2nd Additional District Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, allowed the petition filed by R. Lakshman on February 13, 2026. The court ordered that the petitioner/proposed party be added as the 17th plaintiff in the original Land Acquisition Case (LAOP No. 126/2004). The court found that the petitioner was the rightful owner of 1,349 sq. ft. of land (as established in a prior judgment dated October 3, 2017) and that he was not properly notified or included in the original acquisition proceedings, warranting his inclusion as a party to pursue compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The 2nd Additional District Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, allowed the petition filed by R. Lakshman on February 13, 2026. The court ordered that the petitioner/proposed party be added as the 17th plaintiff in the original Land Acquisition Case (LAOP No. 126/2004). The court found that the petitioner was the rightful owner of 1,349 sq. ft. of land (as established in a prior judgment dated October 3, 2017) and that he was not properly notified or included in the original acquisition proceedings, warranting his inclusion as a party to pursue compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts