The main legal point established in the judgment is the impermissibility of clubbing the jurisdictions vested in the Collector under the Land Revenue Act and as Custodian of Migrant Property under the Migrant Act, and the excessive delegation of powers to the Tehsildar under the Migrant Act.

Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:-

1. The petitioner, through the medium of the instant writ petition seeks quashment of order dated 27th August, 2013, passed by the Collector, (Deputy Commissioner) Budgam, in case titled Abdul Rashid Dar and others v. Abdul Rehman Dar and others, in terms whereof mutation Order No. 378 dated 19.04.1994, of village Kultreh, Tehsil Chadoora, in regard to land measuring 7 kanals falling under survey No. 193 min, was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Tehsildar, Chadoora, for passing appropriate orders under law. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner holds possession of 07 Kanals of land falling under survey No. 193 min, renumbered as 660 min, of revenue estate Kultreh as owner thereof, and also possesses Shamilat Jaiz Land measuring 16 Kanals falling under survey No. 198 of revenue estate Rangeen Kultreh, Tehsil Chadoora, already detailed in the impugned order and need not to be detailed herein.

2. According to the case set up by the petitioner in the instant petition Mst. Mali and Mst. Zeeba delivered possession of the land in Pursuance of an oral gift, effected by Mst. Mali and Mst. Zeeba in the year 1990 and formally participated in the mutation proceedings effected in the year 1994. Petitioners claims to be in exclusive possession of the land aforementioned which has been converted into an Orchard.

3. It is further averred that an application came to be filed by one Abdul Rashid Dar, respondent No. 4, before the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, falsely alleging encroachment on migrant property which prompted the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order directing the Tehsildar Chadoora, to take necessary steps for preservation and protection of the said property.

4. Petitioner claims to have assailed the said order by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court through the medium of writ petition (OWP No. 852/2013), which came to be disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass final order within a period of two months stipulated therein.

5. What is stated further in the writ petition on hand is that the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and produced copies of two sale deeds, one executed by Mst. Mali on 18th November, 2006, and the other executed by the respondent No. 4, on 17th October, 2010, admitting that the property under sale was not migrant property.

6. Respondents 4 to 10 filed an appeal assailing mutation No. 378 favouring petitioner which was pending before the Collector. The same came to be disposed of alongwith the matter under Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immoveable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, (for brevity 'Migrant Act') vide order dated 27th August, 2013, impugned in the writ petition at hand.

7. The impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds which are summarized hereunder:

(i) That the Collector, Budgam, failed to notice the dichotomy between, the law regulating its decision making power as an appellate court under Land Revenue Act, and it acting as a statutory authority under the Migrant Act;

(ii) That the District Magistrate, Budgam, could not have delegated his statutory power derived from the provisions of the Migrant Act;

(iii) That the District Magistrate, Budgam, abdicated his authority and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law.

8. In response to the averments made in the writ petition, the respondents 4 to 10 have filed a detailed reply and contested the same on the following grounds:

(i) That the petitioner has not availed an alternative and efficacious remedy available to him. The petitioner had the remedy of challenging the impugned order in an appeal, which he has not availed;

(ii) That the Respondents 4 to 10 learnt about the mutation order No. 378 dated 19.09.1994 after the death of Mst. Mali (mother of respondents 4 to 7) and Mst. Zeeba (mother of respondents 8 to 10) who