01. The record reveals that this Court vide order dated 30th of May, 2025 has already passed a detailed order wherein, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Salih Peerzada, learned counsel for the private respondent no.7, notice was issued to the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents. The Court, however, deferred the passing of any interim direction on the said date.

02. In addition, the official respondents were directed to keep the original record available on the next date of hearing, which ultimately culminated in the passing of the order dated 22nd May, 2025 by the District Magistrate, Srinagar, impugned in the instant petition. The matter was initially fixed for 5th of February, 2026. However, Mr. G. A. Lone, learned counsel for the petitioner filed a preponement application on 8th of December, 2025 highlighting that the Tehsildar Chanapora/Natipora had already issued an eviction notice on 6th of December, 2025 which was served upon the petitioner on 8th of December, 2025 through Whatsapp.

03. In the said eviction notice, it was conveyed that the petitioner had already been granted three days’ time to vacate the land in question on his own and that failure to do so within the stipulated period from 6th of December, 2025 would result in action being initiated against him under the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. In view of the grave urgency expressed by Mr. G. A. Lone, learned counsel for

the petitioner, this Court deemed it proper to prepone the matter and directed the case to be listed today.

04. When Mr. G. A. Lone, learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted as to why the said eviction notice has not been placed on record, he submitted that since the notice was served only on 8th of December, 2025 and in view of the respondents’ alleged intention to evict the petitioner, he could not file a formal application along with the said eviction notice. Feeling aggrieved, he filed only a preponement application for getting the matter listed.

05. However, till date, the petitioner has not placed the said eviction notice on record by filing any formal application in this regard. Since grave urgency was expressed by Mr. G. A. Lone, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court proceeded to hear the matter once again on the issue of interim relief, in light of the observations made by this Court on 30th of May, 2025 on which date passing of an interim direction was deferred. The matter has since been listed five times before this Court and yet the respondents have, till date, chosen not to file any reply.

06. Today, when the instant matter was taken up for hearing, which has been listed in the Supplementary List, none appeared on behalf of the official respondent. However, Mr.

Salih Peerzada, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent no. 7 has caused his appearance.

07. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the grant of interim relief at this stage and submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar was under a statutory obligation to record his satisfaction as to whether the property in question is a migrant property and whether such authority can at all be delegated to any subordinate officer.

08. He further submitted that in the instant matter, the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar has not recorded any such satisfaction and has instead relied solely upon the report of the concerned Tehsildar, which, by no stretch of imagination, can be construed as his own satisfaction. Thus, the order impugned in the present petition, according to him, does not sustain the test of law.

09. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, reported in 2006 (3) JKJ 407. A perusal of the same reveals that the Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar was required to record satisfaction that the imm