Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Shiv Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., formatted with the requested citation style:

• Purchase of land after Section 4 notification is void ab initio. Any transaction of land or creation of encumbrances after the publication of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is void against the State, and the purchaser acquires no right, title, or interest in the land (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• No right to challenge acquisition proceedings. A subsequent purchaser has no locus standi to question the validity of the notification, the regularity of taking possession, or the acquisition proceedings themselves, as their sale deed does not confer any title (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• No benefit from the Act of 2013 for subsequent purchasers. Purchasers who acquire interest after the Section 11 notification are not included in the definition of "affected family" or "landowner" under Section 3(c) and Section 3(r) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (!) (!) .
• Prohibition on transactions under Section 11(4) of the Act of 2013. The Act of 2013 explicitly prohibits any person from making any transaction or creating any encumbrance on land from the date of publication of the notification under Section 11 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Unauthorised re-entry does not confer any right. A person cannot claim rehabilitation, resettlement, or restoration of land based on unauthorized re-entry into the land after possession was taken by the government; such possession is illegal and does not confer any right (!) (!) (!) .
• Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not validate void transactions. The provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, which deal with the lapse of acquisition proceedings, do not confer any right on a purchaser whose sale is ab initio void; no declaration can be sought to get the land back based on such a transaction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Transactions via Power of Attorney, GPA, or Will are invalid. No rights can be claimed based on transactions executed through Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, or Will, as these do not convey title or create any interest in immovable property (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Judicial propriety regarding precedent. It is not open to a Bench to take a different view ignoring decisions of coordinate and larger Benches by wrongly distinguishing them; if a Bench differs from a coordinate Bench but follows decisions of larger Benches, there is no need to refer the matter to a larger Bench (!) (!) .
• Result of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the appellant has no right on the land in dispute and is not entitled to any relief under the law (!) (!) .