1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Army entered into the subject land without requisition, subsequently, possession of the Army was treated, as if, the land has been requisitioned. 2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, i.e., the Requisitioning Authority, by a communication dated April 18, 2004, addressed to the Commanding Officer, requested him to release rent to the tune of Rs. 36, 277/- up to 2002 and another sum of Rs. 1,04, 879/-, as cost of fruit bearing trees. The Commanding Officer did not make payment of either of the amounts. As a result, a writ petition came to be filed in the year 2006, registered as OWP no. 262/2006. Despite service of a copy of this writ petition, the appellant chose not to file any objections to the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel engaged by the appellant, however, sought disposal of the writ petition at the stage at which the same appeared for consideration on September 11, 2009. The Court, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition by an order dated September 11, 2009, directing the appellant to pay the said sums. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed and in preferring the appeal, a delay of 94 days has been made and as such an application for condonation of delay has been filed. 4. In the appeal, which was filed in 2010, i.e., eight years after the appellant was asked to pay the said sums, it is being contended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishtwar, while asking the appellant to pay the said sums did not take into account that the rent was being fixed on the basis that the land is an orchard. This contention, apart from having not been raised for eight years, in other words, for eight years it having not been held out that the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kishtwar was erroneous, the fact remains that even in the appeal the responsibility to pay rent of Rs. 36, 277/- is not being disputed. What is being disputed is the liability to pay the amount of Rs. 1, 04, 879/- proceeding on the basis that these are the fruits of the orchard; whereas the order does not say so, it says cost of fruit bearing trees. In other words, it depicts loss of property of the orchard itself. 5. What is being disputed is the liability to pay the amount of Rs. 1, 04, 879/- proceeding on the basis that these are the fruits of the orchard; whereas the order does not say so, it says cost of fruit bearing trees. In other words, it depicts loss of property of the orchard itself. 5. That being the situation on the merits of the case and not being satisfied with the reasons furnished for delay in preferring the appeal, and the Court, having not decided any issue raised before the Court, we refuse to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. 6. Accordingly, application fails and the same is dismissed. Consequentially, the appeal also fails and the same is dismissed as time barred.