JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 61/2015 wherein the sole respondent was the petitioner. By the said Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2020, the learned Single Judge has directed the respondents therein i.e. the appellants herein to pay the rental charges of the land under the Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) no. 128/1979 to the respondent herein/the petitioner therein at the same rate paid by the Union of India beginning from the date the land was released by the Security Forces to the appellants. It has been further directed that the rental charges shall be computed by the District Collector i.e. the respondent no. 2 therein/the appellant no. 2 herein and thereafter, to pay the due amount to the petitioner therein/the sole respondent herein, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. It has further been directed to the appellants to release the land of the sole respondent immediately, if it is no longer required. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned counsel for the sole respondent. 3. In order to understand the issue involved, a brief narration of the background facts appears necessary. The respondent had claimed to be the owner of landed properties at Zemabawk, Aizawl on the basis of two Land Settlement Certificates (LSC) - LSC no. 128/1979 and LSC no. 615/1979. It was the contention of the respondent that the lands covered by the aforesaid two LSCs were under the occupation of the Union of India through the Security Forces since the year 1966 due to the insurgency problems in the State of Mizoram. The problems of the insurgency were settled through a Memorandum of Understanding entered between the Government of India and the Mizo National Front (MNF) on 30.06.1986. The respondent was aggrieved when the lands under the possession of the Union of India were neither released nor due compensation was paid, save and except some amounts paid intermittently. 3.1. The problems of the insurgency were settled through a Memorandum of Understanding entered between the Government of India and the Mizo National Front (MNF) on 30.06.1986. The respondent was aggrieved when the lands under the possession of the Union of India were neither released nor due compensation was paid, save and except some amounts paid intermittently. 3.1. A number of litigations was pursued thereafter by land holders including the respondent, before the judicial fora for a number of years, the details which are not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal, save and except a reference to an Order dated 06.10.2010 passed in a writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 18/2010 wherein the sole respondent was one of the respondents. 3.2. By the said Order dated 06.10.2010, the Division Bench of this Court remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl to determine the rate and the quantum of compensation payable to the respondents therein by the Union of India/the State of Mizoram for the period of occupation of the lands of the respondents therein. A direction was also made to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl to take a decision in the matter on or before 31.05.2011. 3.4. Pursuant to the said Order dated 06.10.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl made an Award no. 6/2012 wherein rental charges payable to the sole respondents were calculated. When the said Award was forwarded to the Union of India, an objection was raised on behalf of the Union of India by its letter dated 09.06.2011, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl stating, inter-alia, that the land of the respondent was de-hired from 09.09.1996. As the land of the respondent was de-hired by them on and from 09.09.1996, it was contended on behalf of the Union of India that the respondent was not entitled to get any compensation for the period beyond 09.09.1996 and the assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl on 21.03.2011 had illegally included the assessment of compensation for the period up to March, 2011. 3.5. After receipt of the rental charges from the Union of India, for the period up to 09.09.1996, the respondent preferred the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 61/2016 when neither the lands covered under LSC no. 128/1979 and LSC no. 615/1979 were released to him nor any rental charges for the period beyond 09.09.1996 were paid to him. 4. 3.5. After receipt of the rental charges from the Union of India, for the period up to 09.09.1996, the respondent preferred the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 61/2016 when neither the lands covered under LSC no. 128/1979 and LSC no. 615/1979 were released to him nor any rental charges for the period beyond 09.09.1996 were paid to him. 4. The learned State counsel has submitted that after the plots of land purportedly belonging to the respondent were de-hired on 09.09.1996, the appellants were not in possession of those lands and as such, the appellants are not required to pay rental charges to the respondent. The learned Single Judge has found that out of the two LSCs i.e. LSC no. 128/1979 and LSC no. 615/1979, the respondent was not entitled to receive rental charges in respect of the plot of land covered by LSC no. 615/1979. It was only in respect of LSC no. 128/1979 the direction was made by the learned Single Judge. 4.1. In respect of LSC no. 1 also, according to her, the respondent is not entitled to receive any rental charges. It is her submission that after the plot of land was de-hired by the Union of India through the Security Forces, the respondent was free to take possession of the said plots of land but he never did the same like the other landholders. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellants have been taken contrary stands at different points of time. When the Award no. 6/2012 was made by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, the assessment of rental charges were made for the period up to March, 2011 and it was forwarded to the Union of India for making payment for rental charges the period up to March, 2011. When the objection was raised by the Union of India to the effect that the plots of lands were de-hired as far back as on 09.09.1996, the appellants have been found to have taken a contrary stand in that they are not liable to make any payment for the rental charges. 5.1. Drawing attention of the Court to the averments made by the appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition as well as to the statements made in the writ petition and a letter dated 02.09.1999, addressed to the appellant no. 5.1. Drawing attention of the Court to the averments made by the appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition as well as to the statements made in the writ petition and a letter dated 02.09.1999, addressed to the appellant no. 1 herein, by the representative of the Union of India, the learned counsel for the respondent has made categorical submission that it was the appellants who had the responsibility to hand over the physical possession of the plots of land to the respondent after de-hiring of those plots of land but same was never done. The representation made by the respondent to the appellant No. 2 from time to time to release his plots of land had not been responded. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials made available on record. 7. Though the respondent had claimed rental charges for two plots of land covered by the two Land Settlement Certificates (LCSs) viz. LSC no. 128/1979 and LSC no. 615/1979, the learned Single Judge has negated the claim made by the respondent in respect of LSC no. 615/1979 in the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2020 for the reasons assigned herein. As the respondent has not challenged that part of the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2020, the same has attained finality and thus, the claim for rental charges in respect of LSC no. 615/1979 does not subsist. 8. The issue is, therefore, limited to the rental charges in respect of LSC no. 128/1979. It is found that in Award no. 6/2012, the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl had made the assessment of rental charges for the period in respect of the plots of land of the respondent for the period up to March, 2011 and had claimed the said amount was due from the Union of India. In response, the Union of India had pointed out the fact that those lands were de-hired by the Union of India through the Security Forces as far back as on 09.09.1996 and had stated categorically that the Union of India could not be made liable to make payment of the rental charges beyond the date, 09.09.1996. 9. After receiving the said objection, it transpires from the communication of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012 that a verification process was undertaken and thereafter, a verification report was prepared on 16.11.2011. 9. After receiving the said objection, it transpires from the communication of the Deputy Commissioner dated 20.06.2012 that a verification process was undertaken and thereafter, a verification report was prepared on 16.11.2011. In the said verification report, it was found that the plots of land of the respondents were de-hired in 1996. 10. According to the respondent, the fact that his lands were de-hired in the year 1996 itself came to his knowledge much later. On receipt of such knowledge, the respondent made requests to the appellant no. 2 at different points of time by way of representations to enable him to put the plots of land in gainful use, as the lands are located in the capital city of Aizawl. But the respondent did not receive any response from the appellants nor his lands were released. 11. A perusal of the Communication dated 02.09.1999 (available at page 44 of the appeal papers) addressed to the appellant No. 1 on behalf of the Union of India on the subject : ”Release of land in Mizoram” goes to show that approval to de-hire 65.249 acres of land at Zemabawk was accorded by the higher authorities and the existing assets would be handed over along with the land to the civil administration/owners. The appellant no. 1 was thereby requested to take over the land at the earliest. It goes to show that the appellant no. 1 was asked to take over the lands at Zemabawk, which included the plots of land of the respondent also, meaning thereby, after taking over such land the State respondents would hand over the lands to their respective owners. Categorical averments in the above respect were made by the respondent in his writ petition in paragraph nos. 3 to 14 in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 61/2016. In response to such averments, the appellants in their affidavit-in-opposition filed therein had stated that they had nothing to say in respect of those statements. It is settled, as has been held in Naseem Bano (Smt) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46, that the averments made in the writ petition, if not controverted by the respondents, it should be presumed to have been admitted. It is settled, as has been held in Naseem Bano (Smt) Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46, that the averments made in the writ petition, if not controverted by the respondents, it should be presumed to have been admitted. In the case in hand also, the averments made in the writ petition that after de-hiring of the plots of land by the Union of India in the year 1996, the same were not handed over and the respondent was not able to put the same into any gainful use because of not being handed over the possession by the appellants, had not been traversed in any manner by the appellants during the writ proceedings. In such situation, this Court has no other option but to proceed on the premise that the said averments had been admitted by the appellants herein already during the course of the writ proceedings. 12. During the writ proceedings, the appellants were found to have contended that the handing over and taking over of the land were done only on paper to show that the security forces were no longer occupying the areas. But the State respondents neither took possession of the land nor utilized the same for any purpose and it acted only as a custodian for the sake of preventing others from utilizing and taking possession of the land. It was further averred that the State respondents had made a study over all the lands within the Army occupied areas including that of the respondent, to find the best way to release as there were many boundary disputes. It was also contended that the land of the respondent could at any time be released to him if he was the rightful owner. In this appeal, the appellants had sought to deny the receipt of any grievance from the respondent regarding delivery of possession to him, contrary to the stand of offering no comments during the writ proceedings in reply to the categorical assertions made by the sole respondent that he approached them on a number of occasions by way of representations to hand over delivery of possession of land. Incidentally, the State respondents had filed three nos. of affidavits during the writ proceedings but in none of those affidavits, those assertions regarding non-delivery of physical possession was denied. Incidentally, the State respondents had filed three nos. of affidavits during the writ proceedings but in none of those affidavits, those assertions regarding non-delivery of physical possession was denied. Interestingly, the appellants in the memo of appeal has sought to contend that there were ample opportunities for the respondent to seek the help of the Government when there was no response from the District Collector. 13. It is not the case of the appellants that the respondent was not the landholder in respect of the land covered by LAC no. 128/1979. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India speaks of the right to property by providing that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In Prabin Ram Phukan and another vs. State of Assam and another, reported in (2015) 3 SCC 605 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court in reference to Article 300-A has observed that it had recognized the constitutional right of a person, which was till 1978 recognized as the fundamental right of the citizen. It has been observed that whether fundamental or constitutional, the fact remains that it has always been recognized as a right guaranteed under the Constitution in favour of a citizen/person and no persons can be deprived of this valuable right which the Constitution has given to him, save by authority of law. 14. In the light of the above discussion and the settled proposition of law, we do not find any good and sufficient ground to take a different view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. In such view of the matter, we find this appeal devoid of any merit and consequently, the same is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the payment of rental charges is limited in respect of the plot of land covered by LSC no. 128/1979. There shall, however, be no order to costs.