As per case facts, a property was leased to the State, which later requisitioned it before lease expiry. The requisition was set aside, but the State, through the appellant Directorate, ... continued unlawful occupation. Earlier attempts by the respondent owner to recover possession and compensation were resisted, leading to a writ petition challenging the Collector's order and seeking possession and compensation, which a single judge allowed. The appellant appealed against this judgment. The question arose whether the appeal was maintainable, if the writ petition by the respondent owner had locus standi, if it was barred by limitation under Section 27 and Article 65 of the Limitation Act, if the writ court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding title, and if the unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator was illegal. Finally, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the single judge's order, holding that the appellant had locus standi for the appeal, the respondent owner had locus standi for the writ petition, the writ petition was not barred by limitation (as possession was not adverse and it was a continuing cause of action), the writ court did not exceed jurisdiction as it involved no intricate title dispute, and the appointment of the Arbitrator was legally tenable. Costs were imposed on the appellant's Director for harassment.