JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

Petitioners have challenged order bearing No.DCB/ARA/CC/366 dated 19.08.2015, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, whereby Tehsildar, Chadoora, has been directed to take over possession of the land measuring 7 kanals 5 covered by survey No.419 situated at Village Ropora Namthal Tehsil Chadoora from the petitioner. The aforesaid order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 4(1) of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1997).

2. The case of petitioner, in brief, is that he purchased a parcel of land measuring 7 kanals 5 marlas under Survey No.419 situated at Village Ropora Namthal Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam from one Madusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan-respondent No.9 herein, way back in the year 1989 and obtained possession of the said land from them. It is averred that a proper sale deed could not be executed. Nevertheless, on 23rd February, 1998, above named Madusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner paid a consideration of Rs.4.00 lacs to the owners of the aforesaid land regarding which a separate receipt was executed by them. It is also averred that owners of the land, namely, Madusudan Razdan and Ashok Kumar Razdan, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner on 23rd February, 1998. Petitioner claims his possession over the land in question on the basis of aforesaid documents.

3. It appears that respondent No.11 filed an application before Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir-respondent No.3, on 09.07.014, alleging unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid land. Respondent No.11-Ashok Kumar Razdan, is also stated to have made another application making similar allegations before Financial Commissioner (respondent No.2) on 01.04.2013. Various officers of the Revenue Department proceeded to conduct enquiry and other proceedings on the basis of these applications and ultimately Tehsildar, Chadoora, attached the land in question and put the same on Supardnama in terms of his order bearing No.OQ/2014-15/Chd-838 dated 13-01-2015. Against this order, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing OWP No.131/2015 which was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 02.02.2015, whereby aforesaid order of Tehsildar was set aside. However, while setting aside the aforesaid order, the Court directed Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, to decide the matter with reference to taking over possession of the property claimed by respondent No.11 in terms of provisions of the Act of 1997.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, has passed the impugned order, whereby Tehsildar, Chadoora, has been directed to take over possession of the land in question.

5. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the grounds that it is not the Deputy Commissioner but it is the District Magistrate who is competent to pass an order of eviction in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 1997; that petitioner has, admittedly, come into possession of the property in question with the permission of its owners and, as such, his possession is not unauthorized in nature; that while passing the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner i.e., respondent No.6, has not given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and that Ashok Kumar Razdan, the person who made the application before the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, is only a co-sharer of the property in question and not its sole owner.

6. The petition has been resisted by the official respondents as well as by respondent No.11 by filing separate replies thereto. Respondents No.1 to 10 in their reply have submitted that the property in question is, admittedly, a property owned by the migrants and, as such, petitioner cannot lay claim on the same on the basis of an