' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-According to the submissions of learned counsel, Gehna and his five sons, namely, Kamira, Rajba, Pira, Walia and Amira, had been allotted one square of land each in 1906 under "Shutar Pal" Scheme. As the Scheme was coming to an end, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, directed, in 1923, that the land be re-allotted in a fresh scheme, in the result of which the earlier 'allotments Were cancelled, the land was resumed and the entire land was re-allotted in the name of Gehna only, by Mutation No, 134 dated 3-6-1923. Upon the death of Gehna in 1934; the mutation of inheritance was recorded on 31-4-1936 in favour of his aforesaid five sons, as well as two other sons, namely, Sadullah and Dalia? Who were from a different wife. On 25-9-1965 Sadullah sold 7 acres of land to Gul Muhammad and the necessary mutation was duly recorded the same day. Pira, one of the sons of aforesaid Gehna, challenged the sale by appeal, followed by revision and second revision, but failed throughout, the second revision having been dismissed in 1969. Pira did not agitate any further. He died in 1971. Gul Muhammad, the vendee, instituted in 1977, ejectment proceeding against the petitioners, who are the heirs of Pira, on the ground of default in payment of batai. The petitioners challenged the proceeding by a suit instituted on 28-2-1978 for a declaration and injunction. The suit was dismissed. So, was the petitioners' appeal. Their second appeal in the High Court also failed on 17-11-1981. They now seek leave to appeal.
2. What the petitioners are in fact agitating against is not only the mutation of inheritance recorded in 1936 but also Mutation No, 134 of 1923 whereby the entire land had been allotted in the name of Gehna alone. It is not only too late in the day to challenge these old entries on the bland assertion of lack of knowledge but the petitioners have also to explain why they did not further agitate the matter after the dismissal of the second revision of Pira by the Member, Board of Revenue, in 1969.
In the circumstance, the concurrent view taken by all the Courts below that the suit was barred by time is unassailable. The petition is dismissed.