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.

Case disposed

OS - Original Suit

CNR: TNVP340003312024

Filing Number

69/2024

Filing Date

28-Jul-2022

Registration No

66/2024

Registration Date

28-Jul-2022

Court

District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvennainallur

Judge

1-District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

04-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Suits Valuation Act Section 27(c)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rangasamy s/o Ponnusamy

    Adv. Devanathan. G.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Palanisamy Advocate - Semmalai. V.

  2. 2.Junior engineer

  3. 3.Assistant engineer

  4. 4.Executive engineer

  5. 5.Supervisor engineer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  3. 16-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  4. 02-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  7. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  8. 19-Feb-2026

    Batta

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  9. 05-Feb-2026

    Batta

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  10. 29-Jan-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  11. 13-Jan-2026

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  12. 16-Dec-2025

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  13. 04-Dec-2025

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  14. 20-Nov-2025

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  15. 13-Nov-2025

    Counter

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  16. 06-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  17. 30-Oct-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 30-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  19. 09-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  20. 18-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  21. 11-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  22. 10-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  23. 04-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  24. 14-Aug-2025

    Orders

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  25. 07-Aug-2025

    Enquiry

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  26. 24-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  27. 17-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  28. 03-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  29. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  30. 12-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  31. 28-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  32. 23-Apr-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  33. 23-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  34. 22-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  35. 17-Apr-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  36. 17-Apr-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    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.

  37. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  38. 26-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  39. 19-Mar-2025

    Counter

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  40. 17-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  41. 10-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  42. 20-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  43. 13-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  44. 06-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  45. 23-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  46. 02-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  47. 19-Dec-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  48. 12-Dec-2024

    Trial

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  49. 02-Dec-2024

    Service Pending-Non Bailable Warrant

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  50. 19-Nov-2024

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  51. 15-Oct-2024

    Arguments

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  52. 12-Sep-2024

    Service Pending

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  53. 13-Aug-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  54. 16-Jul-2024

    Counter

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  55. 26-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  56. 13-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  57. 07-Jun-2024

    Issue of Service

    District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate

  58. 19-Mar-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  59. 28-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 66/2024

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case