Supreme Court of India

P. RAM REDDY ETC. versus LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD ETC.

Decided: 27 January 1995
Judges listed: K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal: Disposed off

Citations

Official

[1995] 1 S.C.R. 584 · 1995 INSC 77

Also cited as

(1995) 2 SCC 305 (48 citing judgments)
JT 1995 (1) SC 593 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown

1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 16 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

STATE OF PUNJAB versus AMARJIT SINGH AND ANR. 8 February 2011 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 5
N. NATESAM PILLAI versus SPL. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, TIRUCHY 11 August 2010 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 20
UDHO DASS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 21 April 2010 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 10 and 1 other paragraph
SANGUNTHALA (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus SPECIAL TEHSILDAR (L.A.) & ORS. 24 February 2010 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 13
DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, GUJARAT & ANR. versus MADHUBAI GOBARBHAI & ANR. 29 July 2009 · bench of 2 judges · cites it at para 14

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

We show no paragraphs for this judgment: the judgment's start was not found in our copy, so its stored text may include the editorial headnote; we could not check the quote or pin-cite against it.