JUDGMENT :

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd April 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition, being OWP No. 779/2002, titled as Maharaj Krishan Dass & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.

2. We have heard learned counsel for parties. We have gone through the impugned judgment, writ record and considered the matter.

3. Assailing the impugned judgment, Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant has stated that appellant was put in possession by respondent no. 4, as tenant on 24th December, 1996 and, therefore, J&K Migrant Immoveable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (for short "Act of 1997") has no application to the case in hand. Besides, appellant's possession vis-a-vis shop in question is authorised and lawful as it has been given to him by its owner.

3.1. While dilating his submissions, learned senior counsel would contend that respondents 5&6 filed a writ petition claiming therein that Shop No. 16 at Budshah Chowk, Srinagar, stood rented out to them since 1961 and business in the shop was carried on under the name and style of Janki Dass and Company Chemists. According to respondents 5&6 father of writ petitioner no. 1 was the tenant of shop. Their further case in writ petition is that in 1992 a huge bunker adjacent to the shop was constructed by the Security Forces, which prevented them from conducting business. A communication was addressed by them to Additional Deputy Inspector General, Border Security Force, dated 09.09.1996 and to Divisional Commissioner Kashmir in which they requested for grant of compensation to the owner of the shop if deemed fit. Their further case is that Respondent No. 4 broke open the locks of shop when the said respondents had migrated and all the documents were removed, so FIR No. 08/1997, dated 14.01.1997 was lodged by them with Police Station Maisuma. It is also stated by writ petitioners in their writ petition that upon a request made by them to Inspector General of Police on 03.03.1997 about the progress in the investigation, a report was called in which it was stated that the management of the Trust had broken the locks of the shop and after destroying the expired medicine the shop was rented out by the Trust to the appellant herein. Writ petitioners on the aforesaid facts claimed protection of their property under the provisions of the Act of 1997. Further case of writ petitioners/respondents 5 & 6 is that they filed an application before District Magistrate, Srinagar, but since no action was taken, they filed a writ petition, being OWP No. 948/1997, which was decided on 10.11.1999 and Writ Court directed District Magistrate to take necessary action under the Act within a period of two months.

3.2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would also contend that respondents/writ petitioners filed a Contempt Petition, wherein District Magistrate filed his report dated 30.09.2000, stating therein that order dated 10.11.1999 had been complied with. Aggrieved of the decision of the Contempt Court, the further case of these respondent-writ petitioners is that they filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench, which upheld the order of the contempt court. According to these respondents the Appellate Court allowed respondents/writ petitioners to challenge the order of District Magistrate. After obtaining copy of the order dated 30.09.2000 the respondent-writ petitioners challenged the said order in OWP No. 779/2002. The writ court quashed the order dated 30.09.2000 and directed that the appellant be dispossessed from Shop No. 16.

3.3. Learned senior counsel for appellant has also averred that Writ Court identified two questions for consideration. According to Writ Court, respondents/writ petitioners were tenants of respondent no. 4 and their right stands protected under the Act of 1997. The second question framed by the court is that the tenancy right of the