Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The appellant filed suit for possession and permanent injunction alleging that his father was recorded as owner in possession of 86 Kanals 4 Marias of land. The plaintiff and his brothers were joint owners of land measuring 64 Kanals 9 Marias by virtue of sale deed dated 24.4.1958. They exchanged their land with their father Mukandi Lal, which was entered in revenue record on 25.2.1959. Land taken in exchange was partitioned between the plaintiff and his brothers and from 1958 to 1977, the plaintiff continued in possession of the land which came to his share. In the year 1976, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the land was going to be utilised under the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act). He along with his brothers moved a petition on 1.4.1977 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thanesar against proposed utilisation. The said application was rejected on 22.12.1977. Thereafter, different proceedings were taken but the plaintiff was not successful. Land was thereafter allotted to the contesting defendants and mutations were sanctioned on 24.1.1985. The plaintiff was dispossessed from part of the land which was illegal. He was also entitled to injunction with regard to the land in his possession. 2. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that the same was barred under Section 26 of the 1972 Act. It was also pleaded that the exchange was non-existent. 3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding:- (i) On 10.7.1961, land was declared as surplus in the hands of father of the plaintiff under the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tensures Act, 1953. The said area vested in the State under Section 12(3) of the 1972 Act and under the scheme of utilisation of surplus area, the land was allotted to defendant Nos. 3 and 4. Oral exchange was a family affair and was only a manipulation to exclude the land from surplus pool. The plaintiff, thus, had no right to be heard. (Paras 10 and 11). (ii) Plea of the Plaintiff had been considered by various revenue authorities. The suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. (Paras 12 and 13). (iii) The suit was barred by limitation having been filed more than 12 years after the declaration of surplus area. (Para 14). The plaintiff, thus, had no right to be heard. (Paras 10 and 11). (ii) Plea of the Plaintiff had been considered by various revenue authorities. The suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. (Paras 12 and 13). (iii) The suit was barred by limitation having been filed more than 12 years after the declaration of surplus area. (Para 14). The above findings have been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. Hence this second appeal. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no ground to hold that exchange deed was sham transaction and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to be heard before declaration of surplus area. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that both the courts below have concurrently held that the exchange deed was a sham transaction in view of impending proceedings and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be held to be perverse. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the exchange deed was a sale transaction and the appellant could not be granted declaration that declaration of surplus area was void without hearing him nor was the appellant entitled to injunction on that basis, cannot be held to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.