RSA No. 3591 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3591 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Om Parkash & others petitioner vs Satinder and others respondent Present:- Mr. GK Chawla, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI The suit of the plaintiff- appellants for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that they are exclusive owners in possession of the land, mentioned in the heading of the plaint, measuring 5 bighas 1 biswa, has been dismissed by the courts below holding that they have not been able to prove that vide oral exchange, 18 biswas of land had been exchanged. Besides this, it was held that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as the revenue record of the year 1967 had been challenged after a gap of a number of years i.e. in the year 2004. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the fard badar had wrongly shown that 10 biswas of land had been exchanged, whereas actually 18 biswas of land had been exchanged. No opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff- appellants before entering the fard badar. The second fard bardar is not permissible. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the judgments passed by the courts below on the basis of revenue RSA No. 3591 of 2009 2 record. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are exclusive owners in possession of khasra No. 316 (0-18) by way of oral exchange and that fard badar 79 of the year 2004 is wrong, null and void, has been dismissed by giving a concurrent finding of fact that it was 10 biswas of land, which had been exchanged and that the suit is barred by limitation. The validity of the mutation entry of the year 1967 has been sought to be challenged after a gap of a number of years. The courts below have rightly not decreed the suit of the plaintiff- appellants on appreciation of evidence and law of limitation. Copies of fard badar have been produced by the counsel. I have carefully gone through the same and returned the same to the counsel. No ground for interference is made out as no substantial question of law is involved. Dismissed. May 23 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE