JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthakumar; CJ.-- 1. This appeal is filed against the order made in OWP No. 513 of 1999 dated 20.05.2004, wherein the learned Single Judge has issued directions to the appellants, particularly the 1st appellant, to pay the rental compensation to the respondent for occupation of his premises by the Security Forces with effect from 17.10.1992 to December, 1994 and ex-gratia amount for the damage to the building as per Government policy with 4% interest per annum with effect from January, 1995. 2. The 1st respondent is a migrant. Before migration he had set up a small scale Industrial Unit at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar under the name and style of M/S Choudhari Wire Nails Industries which was duly registered with the Directorate of Industries and Commerce bearing registration No. 07/04/01819 dated 23.04.1983. The Unit was made functional in the year 1989, however, due to the eruption of militancy in Kashmir Valley the respondent was forced to migrate from the Valley along with thousands of people. In the year 1992 the factory premises were occupied by the Security Forces. A complaint was made before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu in the year 1993 who in turn by letter dated 28.01.1993 directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar, to furnish the factual position, based on which the Staff Officer to the I.G.P. Jammu by letter dated 19.10.1993 stated that the factory premises stands occupied by the Security Forces with effect from 17.10.1992. On the basis of the said occupation the first respondent prayed for rent for the occupation of the premises by the Security Forces till the building was vacated in December, 1994. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the documents filed by the respondent, which shows that the Security Forces were in occupation of the building from October, 1992 to December, 1994, allowed the writ petition with direction to pay the rental dues from 17.10.1992 to December, 1994 along with ex-gratia. Insofar as the further claim of damages to the building is concerned, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim. The said finding, insofar as rejection of prayer for loss to the property has not been questioned by the respondent, therefore, the said finding has become final. 3. Insofar as the further claim of damages to the building is concerned, the learned Single Judge rejected the claim. The said finding, insofar as rejection of prayer for loss to the property has not been questioned by the respondent, therefore, the said finding has become final. 3. This appeal is restricted to allowing the claim of rental arrears alone and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants as well the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the arrears of rent along with interest was paid to the respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court but the said payment was subject to final outcome of this appeal. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants argued that since the amount of arrears of rent having been paid with liberty to recover, the appeal has to be decided on merits. 4. It is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that disputed facts are raised in the writ petition, which ought not to have been entertained by the Writ Court and giving direction to the appellants to pay rent is unsustainable particularly when the Director General of Police by letters dated 03.01.1996 and 02.01.1998 was asked to look into the matter. 5. Mr. D. C. Raina, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submitted that there is no dispute regarding the occupation of the premises of the respondent by the Security Forces from October 1992 to December, 1994 and the Inspector General of Police Jammu based on the report of Station House Officer, Police Station Parimpora, Srinagar dated 28.08.1993 had reported that the premises in question were occupied by the Security Forces with effect from 17.10.1992 and presently they are residing there, as per report dated 19.10.1993. The said intimation was given by the Inspector General of Police Jammu to the respondent on 19.10.1993. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Srinagar again requested the Senior Superintendent of Police, Srinagar on 16.12.1993 to verify the exact period of occupation and the name of the Unit of the Security Force which was occupying the premises of the respondent. The District Industries Centre Srinagar through its General Manager in his letter dated 07.12.1997 stated that the unit holder is presently a migrant and the factory shed is completely gutted up to plinth level. The District Industries Centre Srinagar through its General Manager in his letter dated 07.12.1997 stated that the unit holder is presently a migrant and the factory shed is completely gutted up to plinth level. The shed in the premises was occupied by the Security Forces from October 1992 and vacated in December, 1994. Based on the said documents, which are official documents, the learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified in giving direction to pay the rent for the period for which the Security Forces have occupied the premises of the respondent. 6. We have considered the points raised. 7. It is true that if there is serious dispute on facts the Writ Court should not interfere. However, it is also a fact that if the facts are established by official documents as proof the Writ Court can order payment of amount. There is no dispute with regard to the occupation of the premises of the respondent by the Security Forces from 17.10.1992 up to December, 1994 and the same was verified by the Department of Police and also certified by the officers of the Industries Department, as stated supra. The respondent was also paid the said rent arrears with interest as ordered by the learned Single Judge during the pendency of this appeal. The respondent has suffered a lot due to militancy activities and he was forced to migrate and his factory was gutted down and the shed in the factory having been occupied by the Security Forces which is proved by unimpeachable evidence, which was rightly gone through by the learned Single Judge. Hence we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. 8. No costs.