1. The petitioner wants the proceedings to be stayed in terms of Jammu and Kashmir migrants (stay of Proceedings) Act of 1997. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a migrant. For this, reliance was placed on the definition of "migrant" occurring in Section 2(c) of the Act of 1997. For facility of reference, this Section is being reproduced below: "2(c) "Migrant" means any person who has migrated from the Kashmir valley after 1st November, 1989 and i$ registered as such with the Relief Commissioner and includes a person who has not been so registered on the ground of his being in service of the Government in any moving office or having left the valley in pursuit of his occupation or vacation and is possessed of immovable property in the valley but is unable to ordinarily reside there due to the disturbed conditions." 2. The analysis of the aforementioned Sec­tion would indicate that a migrant would mean; i) Any person who has migrated from the valley after 01.11.1989 and is regis­tered as such with the Relief Commissioner; ii) Migrant would also include a person who has not been so registered on the ground of his being in service of the Govern­ment in any moving office; iii) has left the valley in pursuit of his occupation or vocation; and iv) is possessed of immovable prop­erty in the valley but is unable to ordinarily re­side there due to the disturbed conditions. 3. The trial court has come the conclusion that the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories referred to above. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this pe­tition. It is submitted that the petitioner at least does fall within the last category which deals with a person who is possessed of immovable property in the valley but is unable to ordinar­ily reside there due to the disturbed conditions. The trial court took note of this last condition also and came to the conclusion that the peti­tioner is an active political worker and has been visiting the valley off and on. It was this aspect of the matter which was taken note of and it was concluded that the petitioner would not fall within the parameters i.e. that he is unable to ordinarily reside in the valley due to disturbed conditions. It was this aspect of the matter which was taken note of and it was concluded that the petitioner would not fall within the parameters i.e. that he is unable to ordinarily reside in the valley due to disturbed conditions. As the petitioner was found to be visiting the valley off and on, it has been con­cluded that he would not fall within the defini­tion of a Migrant". I am of the opinion that the view ex­pressed by the trial court does not require any interference, this petition is found to be with­out merit and is dismissed.