Rangasamy s/o Ponnusamy vs Palanisamy Advocate - Semmalai. V. — 66/2024
Case under Suits Valuation Act Section 27(c). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 04th June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVP340003312024
Filing Number
69/2024
Filing Date
28-07-2022
Registration No
66/2024
Registration Date
28-07-2022
Court
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur
Judge
1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Decision Date
04th June 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Rangasamy s/o Ponnusamy
Adv. Devanathan. G.
Respondent(s)
Palanisamy Advocate - Semmalai. V.
Junior engineer
Assistant engineer
Executive engineer
Supervisor engineer
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-04-2026 | Judgement |
| 02-04-2026 | Arguments |
| 30-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
The court examined a property dispute (Case 66/2023) concerning land in Thiruvannamalai involving petitioner Rangasamy against respondents including advocate Palanisamy and engineering officials. The court found procedural violations and defects in the property acquisition process, including improper notice, flawed measurement documentation (6.55 cents vs. claimed area), and inadequate compensation calculations. The court partially allowed the petition, directing the authorities to correct procedural irregularities and recalculate compensation at ₹100 per cent with interest, while addressing the substantial discrepancies in land measurement and valuation documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court examined a property dispute (Case 66/2023) concerning land in Thiruvannamalai involving petitioner Rangasamy against respondents including advocate Palanisamy and engineering officials. The court found procedural violations and defects in the property acquisition process, including improper notice, flawed measurement documentation (6.55 cents vs. claimed area), and inadequate compensation calculations. The court partially allowed the petition, directing the authorities to correct procedural irregularities and recalculate compensation at ₹100 per cent with interest, while addressing the substantial discrepancies in land measurement and valuation documentation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts