' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 21-3-2002, passed in Writ Petition No,3227 of 1993.
2. The facts, in brief, are that mortgaged land measuring 16 Kanals comprising Khasra Nos.3579 and 3638, Khewat Nos.543/538/401, situated in Mauza Khudian, Tehsil and District Kasur, in favour of the petitioner in 1960 for a sum of Rs,700 was redeemed on payment of Rs,700 in favour of the contesting respondents on their application under section 10 of the Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Land Act, 1964, vide order dated 29-1-1991 passed by the Collector. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal and thereafter revision, which were dismissed by the Commissioner, Lahore Division and Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, on 17-7-1991 and 14-3-1993, respectively. He assailed the aforesaid orders by filing Constitutional petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 21-3- 2002. Hence, this petition.
3. Ch. Muhammad Zahoor Nasir, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned High Court did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the impugned judgment is not maintainable.
4. Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondents Nos.3 to 8 supported the impugned judgment and controverted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on record. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner, which were upheld by the Member, Board of Revenue and maintained by the learned High Court. In the impugned judgment we do not find misreading or non-reading or misconstruction of law. 'The impugned judgment is entirely based on the proper appreciation of facts as well as the legal aspects of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court.
6. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that this petition is without merit and substance, which is dismissed alongwith the listed application and leave to appeal refused.