Per Virender Singh, J.;— 1. Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the appellant (For short writ petitioner) assails the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby OWP No.721/2003 filed by her seeking quashment of order dated 25.11.1993, wherein her husband Bachan Singh was directed to appear before the Executive Officer (Estate Officer) Cantonment Board, Jammu-respondent No.2 herein and also order dated 01.12.1993 issued by respondent No.1 directing her husband (since deceased) liable to evict the shop of the Cantonment Board and to pay damages for illegal occupation of the property in dispute, stands dismissed. 2. The case set up by the writ petitioner, as averred in the writ petition, is that her husband was allotted a shop in the Shopping Booth constructed under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, pursuant to the Notification issued by the respondents. After the allotment was made in his favour, in terms of the intimation letter dated 30.08.1990, he was directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- on account of development charges within a stipulated period of 30 days from the date of letter of intimation. Consequently, he deposited a sum of Rs.14,000/- in addition to an amount of Rs.1,000/- which was already deposited by him at the time of applying for allotment of the shop. The possession of the shop was also handed over to her husband. However, after the death of her husband, the shop was not regularly opened. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the month of July/August 1991, the respondents called certain allottees of the shops and threatened to cancel their allotment letters, which constrained them to file a civil suit before the learned Sub-Judge, Jammu, which ultimately came to be disposed of on the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that they would not evict the allottees (Plaintiffs in the civil suit) from the suit premises otherwise than in due course of law. The petitioner's husband was also one of the plaintiffs. 4. The petitioner's husband was also one of the plaintiffs. 4. The case further set up by the petitioner is that after passing of the order by the Civil Court way back in November, 1993, the respondent had intimated that the allotment of the shop has been made in favour of husband of the petitioner but subsequently on the direction from GOC Northern Command, the said allotment was terminated and that a notice was issued by respondent No.2 under Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1971, in which the demand was also made as arrears of damage. Aggrieved of the order of the Cantonment Board, some other similarly situated allottees filed a writ petition bearing OWP No.1062/1993 in this Court. The impugned order and the notices were ultimately quashed by this Court vide order dated 19.08.1999. However, the husband of the petitioner could not join them for filing the petition. 5. Primarily on these grounds, the petitioner sought quashment of orders dated 25.11.1993 and dated 01.12.1993 respectively. 6. Writ Court record reveals that during the pendency of the writ petition, by way of interim relief, status quo in respect to the shop in question was ordered to be maintained. 7. The writ petition was resisted by the respondents, inter alia, on the grounds that the petition was suffering from delay and latches as it has been filed 10 years after passing of the impugned orders. On merits also, the respondents took the plea that the husband of petitioner did not deposit the amount of Rs.14,000/- as development charges, as such he had no right to seek any remedy. Learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition not only on the ground of inordinate delay of 10 years in filing the writ petition, which delay went unexplained by the writ petitioner, even on merits also, the learned Single Judge found the case of the petitioner to be on very weak footing, inasmuch as there was no evidence on record to show that husband of the petitioner had ever deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- as demanded by the respondents and that any Lease Deed was ever executed between the parties or that even the possession was handed over to him. 8. 8. During the pendency of the Us before the writ Court, an opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner to place on record the Lease Deed, if any, executed between the parties or any receipt showing that the aforesaid amount demanded by the respondents was ever deposited by the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner failed in placing on record any such document to strengthen her case. 9. So far as, considering the case of the petitioner at par with those, who had knocked the door of this Court vide OWP No.1062/1993 in which the writ Court ultimately quashed the impugned order terminating the allotments and the notices issued to the allottees for arrears of damages, it is observed by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said judgment, as the said allottees had deposited Rs.15,000/- with the respondents as development charges, whereas no evidence was produced by the petitioner in this regard. Another glaring weakness, which is observed in the case of the petitioner, is that she had not given any intimation to the respondents that her husband had died. Filing of the writ petition by one Vijay Kumar Sharma through power of attorney is also taken against the petitioner by the learned writ Court. 10. Record of the instant appeal reveals that vide interim direction, the respondents were restrained from allotting the shop in dispute to someone else, which direction is still in operation. At one stage, certain suggestions were also projected by the Court to bring the litigation between the parties to an end and one of the proposals was that whatever price respondent-Cantonment Board may receive by putting the adjoining shops to public auction, which process the Board had to go through, in due course, the shop in dispute could be offered to the writ petitioner, who is widow, on that price on a condition that she, her son alone would be entitled to run the shop and no other person would be entitled to use the same. Mr. Kotwal was asked to have instructions in this regard. For this reason also, the instant appeal was adjourned on many dates and ultimately, Mr. Kotwal after getting the instructions from the concerned quarter made a statement at the bar that she could not be accommodated, as suggested by the Court. Mr. Kotwal was asked to have instructions in this regard. For this reason also, the instant appeal was adjourned on many dates and ultimately, Mr. Kotwal after getting the instructions from the concerned quarter made a statement at the bar that she could not be accommodated, as suggested by the Court. The matter was once again deferred, as the learned counsel for both the sides made a statement that on account of new incumbent in the Cantonment Board, an exercise for an amicable settlement could once again be made. The Court was informed that the Board is not willing to accommodate the petitioner by allotting shop in her name. Therefore, the instant appeal calls for its disposal on merits. 11. Heard Mr. Abrol, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and gone through the writ Court record. 12. The main limb of argument advanced by Mr. Abrol is that the case of the petitioner is identical and similarly situated with the allottees, who knocked at the door of this Court by filing writ petition bearing OWP No.1062/1993 titled Mohin-der Kour and others v. Cantonment Board, Jammu and anr., in which along with other writ petitions of the similar nature, termination of allotment orders were quashed. The husband of the petitioner could not move the Court because of his ill health or even after his death. According to the learned counsel, the learned writ Court has not appreciated this aspect in its right perspective. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the judgment passed in the aforesaid writ petition bearing OWP No.1062/1993, annexed as Annexure-P3 with the writ Court record. Mr. Abrol further submits that may be the petitioner has not been able to place on record any documentary evidence with regard to deposit of an amount of Rs.15,000/- at the time of allotment of shop in favour of her husband, the factum of allotment is not disputed in the present case, as the learned counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board had made a statement before the Civil Judge that the plaintiffs therein will not be evicted except in due course of law. Finding of the learned Single Judge on this aspect is also erroneous and contrary to the record. 13. Mr. Finding of the learned Single Judge on this aspect is also erroneous and contrary to the record. 13. Mr. Abrol lastly submits that power of attorney given in favour of one Vijay Kumar Sharma, in fact has no nexus with the shop allotted in favour of husband of the petitioner. It has been given only to look after the premises on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, there can be no illegality in granting the power of attorney. 14. We find no force in either of the submissions advanced by Mr. Abrol at the bar. 15. Admittedly, there is delay of 10 years in moving the Court after passing of the impugned orders and no explanation whatsoever, much less satisfactory explanation, has been put forth for the same. The writ petition merits dismissal on this ground alone. Not only that, on merits also, we find the case of the petitioner on a very slippery footing. There is no documentary evidence available on record to show that her husband had ever deposited Rs.15,000/- with the respondent as development charges at the time of allotment of shop in his favour or that any Lease Deed was ever executed between her husband and the respondents. She was afforded an opportunity to place on record any such documentary evidence but failed. 16. Argument of Mr. Abrol that the respondents have not denied the occupation of the husband of the appellant, is not factually correct. In fact, the respondents in their objections before the writ Court have specifically pleaded that no Lease Deed has ever been executed and that the petitioner had not rebutted the said plea by filing rejoinder to it. Therefore, the pleadings, which went un-rebutted or unchanged, shall be presumed to have been admitted. 17. Mr. Abrol put much stress on the judgment passed in OWP No.1062/1993 taking plea that the similarly situated allottees have been granted relief by the writ Court by quashment of termination orders. But, in our considered view, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said judgment for a very simple reason that in the case of those allottees (writ petitioners in OWP No.1062/1993), they had deposited Rs.15,000/- which fact was admitted by the respondents, whereas in the case of the petitioner, there is specific denial by the respondents in this regard. 18. 18. There being no reference in the writ petition with regard to any connection of Vijay Kurnar Sharma vis-'-vis shop in dispute, despite that the main writ petition being filed by the petitioner projecting him as her power of attorney leads the Court to draw an inference that the main writ petition, in fact, was filed by Vijay Kumar Sharma and not by Vaishno Devi, the writ petitioner herein. During the pendency of the instant appeal, at one stage Mr. Kotwal made a statement before the Court that the appellant had approached Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Jammu and informed him that neither she had filed an appeal nor executed any attorney in favour of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma. On his statement vide order dated 23.11,2006, the Registrar Judicial was directed to issue a Court notice to the appellant and her attorney for their personal appearance in this Court on a particular date. However, perusal of the record indicates that the said issue was left as it is, may be for the reason that both the sides started making an attempt to settle the matter amicably, and at one stage this Court had also projected certain suggestions, reference thereto has already been made hereinabove. That apart, in our considered view, on merits, the writ petitioner has no case for our indulgence. 19. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, we do not find the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, perverse on any count. Resultantly, the appeal on hand is dismissed. 20. Interim direction shall stand vacated.