deliberately left out without a remedy when he could have protected himself by seeking for the allotment of the property purchased by him within the permissible area. In a situation where a purchaser could have protected himself by the act of the owner and could have made the allotment to fall within the permissible area to stave off action of the State by compulsory acquisition, the issue of notice to a purchaser would assume significance. In this case, the purchaser is a person who has purchased the property after the surplus is declared from out of the surplus pool from a person whose predecessor himself suffered a legal bar against transfer under the terms of allotment. If the cancellation itself was not known to the petitioners, it could have been a different issue. In a case where they had taken notice of the cancellation and challenged the said cancellation, the legal prejudice must be specifically shown. If the purchaser could have any tenable objection to take regarding the validity of such a transfer in the face of express bar against transfer by the allottee, the want of notice at the first stage of the proceedings cannot be seen to be material. The petitioners having joined the proceedings midway at their own instance could succeed only if they could prove prejudice. The petitioners who have acted against the Rules are not persons who can impeach the order of cancellation.
