Karri Koteswara Rao, S/O. Rama ... vs The Govt Of A.P.Rep By Its Principal ... on 22 April, 2026
44. So far as the impleaded respondents are concerned,
though a paper publication was issued by petitioners not to
make purchase with regard to the subject property, the
impleaded respondents purchased the same without
permission. Hence, they cannot claim to be bona fide
purchasers for value and consideration. The High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Subhash Chand v. The
Financial Commissioner Revenue (judgment dated
24.12.2008 in L.P.A.No. 184 of 2004), after considering the
judgments relied on by appellants therein in Damodar Dass v.
Joginder Singh (LPA No. 181 of 1972), Division Bench
Judgments reported in The State of Haryana v. Smt. Savitri
Devi (1986 PLJ 656), Shangara Singh v. Financial
Commissioner (1993 PLJ 712), Single Bench judgments
reported in Kali Ram v. Union of India (1976 Revenue Law
Reporter 438), Rattan Singh v. Chief Settlement
Commissioner, Haryana (1978 Revenue Law Reporter 242),
Achhar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1979 Revenue Law
Reporter 360), the judgments relied on by respondents in Jote
Singh (died) by L.Rs. v. Ram Das Mahto (AIR 1966 SC 2773),
39
Ramrao Jankiram Kadam v. State of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC