JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. CM No.6821/2024 This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Although, there is huge unexplained delay of 698 days in filing the appeal, yet having regard to the fact that the appeal itself is devoid of merit, we with the consent of learned counsel for the respondents, decided to condone the delay. Ordered accordingly. LPA No.244/2024 1. Impugned in this appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is an order and judgment dated 18.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“Writ Court”] in OWP No.1302/2015 titled Kala Ram and others v. State of J&K and others, whereby the Writ Court has directed the appellant to pay the rent to the respondents, as assessed by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba, in terms of its report dated 30 th March, 2015 for two years of occupation i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15 with a further direction to the District Rent Assessment Committee to make similar assessment for the period 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18. The appellant herein has also been called upon to disburse the rent for the aforesaid periods as well upon receiving the assessment from the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from October, 2018 onwards till actual payment of the entire amount. The Writ Court has also quashed order No.558 of 2016 dated 19.02.2016 as being arbitrary and baseless. 2. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant primarily on the ground that the rent payable to the respondents for the land that has remained under occupation of the police is governed by the Government Order No.Home-35(P) of 2009 dated 16.01.2009 and not as per the assessment made by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba. It is, thus argued by Ms. Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the assessment of rent made in terms of Government Order dated 16.01.2009 has already been disbursed to the respondents. The Writ Court has, it is contended, not appreciated this aspect of the matter and has erroneously held the respondents entitled to the rent as per the assessment made by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba. 3. Before we proceed to appreciate the solitary ground of challenge urged by Ms. The Writ Court has, it is contended, not appreciated this aspect of the matter and has erroneously held the respondents entitled to the rent as per the assessment made by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba. 3. Before we proceed to appreciate the solitary ground of challenge urged by Ms. Kohli, appearing for the appellant, a brief look at the factual matrix of the case may be necessary. 4. The Police Central Store, Jammu occupied a piece of land measuring 7 kanals 18 marlas falling in Khasra No.247 situated in village Kartholi, Ward No.12, Bari Brahmana falling in District Samba [“subject land”] in the month of February, 2013. The District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Samba carried out the rent assessment for the respondents? land at the rate of Rs.42,500/- per month for the year 2013-14 and at the rate of Rs.51,300/- per month for the year 2014-15 at the instance of the police department. 5. With a view to meet the payment, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Samba sought funds for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, the Government directed the SSP, Samba to get the rent of the land assessed afresh in terms of Government Order No.Home- 225(P) of 2009 dated 23.03.22009. The Deputy Commissioner, Samba was, thus, again approached for making assessment in terms of the aforesaid Government Order read with Government Order No.Home- 35(P) of 2009 dated 16.01.2009. Accordingly, rentals were assessed and the police department intimated about the payment of Rs.2,48,850/- for the period w.e.f. February, 2013 to May, 2015. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the manner in which the re-assessment was done by the appellant, the respondents filed OWP No.1302/2015 demanding the rentals in respect of the subject land on the basis of assessment made by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing its objections. Two Government orders issued in the year 2009 (supra) were pressed into service to resist the claim of the respondents for payment of rental compensation on the basis of assessment made by the Rent Assessment Committee, Samba. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing its objections. Two Government orders issued in the year 2009 (supra) were pressed into service to resist the claim of the respondents for payment of rental compensation on the basis of assessment made by the Rent Assessment Committee, Samba. The Writ Court having considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record, came to the conclusion that the Government Orders of 2009, pressed into service by the appellant to resist the claim of the respondents, were not applicable and that the respondents were entitled to rental compensation as per the assessment made by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba in accordance with law. This is how the Writ Court has allowed the petition of the respondents and issued directions, we have referred to herein above, in terms of the judgment impugned. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the Writ Court is legally perfect and unquestionable on any ground whatsoever. 8. The solitary ground of challenge urged by Ms. Kohli, has been elaborately dealt with by the Writ Court in paragraph Nos.15 to 21 of the impugned judgment. With a view to appreciate the argument of Ms. Kohli, we have also very carefully gone through the twin Government Orders issued by the Department of Home in the year 2009 for fixation of rent rates for land appurtenant to buildings/Hotels under the occupation of Security Forces. 9. The “subject” of Government order dated 16.01.2009 and the opening paragraph clearly spell out the ambit of application of the Government Order. The subject reads as under:- “Subject: Fixation of rent rates for land appurtenant to buildings/Hotels under the occupation of Security Forces.” The opening paragraph of the order dated 16.01.2009 reads thus:- “Whereas the Government appointed a Committee vide Government order No.864(P) of 2008 dated 15.12.2008 to recommend to the Government rationalization of rent rate structure of land appurtenant to buildings/hotels and the portion of hotels not occupied/under-utilized partly or wholly by the security forces on counter insurgency duty and to stream line the procedure of payment of rent and remove anomalies in the rate structures;” 10. From the above, it clearly manifests that the Government Order dated 16.01.2009 was issued for the purposes of fixation of rent rates for the land appurtenant to buildings/hotels under the occupation of security forces in connection with counter insurgency duty. Indisputably, in the instant case, the land of the respondents remained under occupation of the police to be used as „Police Central Store? and was not under occupation or utilization of the security forces working on counter insurgency front. That apart, Government Order in question was only with a view to streamlining fixation of rent rates for the land appurtenant to buildings/hotels under occupation of security forces and had no application to the vacant piece of land occupied by the police department for its use as a store. 11. Government Order No. Home-225(P) of 2009 dated 23.03.2009 was for rationalization of the procedure for assessment and sanction of rent of private buildings and land under the occupation of the security forces. Opening paragraph of the Government order would make it abundantly clear that the Government Order was intended to be applied for assessment and payment of rent for private buildings and land under the occupation of security forces engaged in counter insurgency duties. 12. As explained above, the subject land was never occupied by the department of police in respect of any counter insurgency duties. The District Samba, more particularly Bari Brahmana area is not a terrorism affected area nor security forces are deployed in the said area for counter insurgency duty. The subject land was occupied by the appellant only for the purpose of using it as a Police Central Store, a user unconnected with counter insurgency duties. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the ground of challenge urged by Ms. Kohli to assail the judgment impugned. The Writ Court has gone in some detail to discuss the right of a citizen to property under the Constitution of India and the view taken by the Writ Court on the question of law is unexceptionable. 14. On facts, we find that the two Government Orders issued by the Department of Home in the year 2009 had no application to the rent assessment to be made in respect of the subject land. 14. On facts, we find that the two Government Orders issued by the Department of Home in the year 2009 had no application to the rent assessment to be made in respect of the subject land. The respondents have rightly been held entitled to the payment of rentals on the rates assessed and to be assessed by the District Rent Assessment Committee, Samba. However, in the given facts and circumstances and regard being had to the stand of the appellant based upon poor understanding of Government Orders of 2009, we are inclined to reduce the costs to Rs.25,000/-. 15. With the aforesaid modification, in respect of costs, judgment passed by the Writ Court is upheld. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.