1. The petitioner impugns an order purporting to have been passed by the District Magistrate, Srinagar under Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act of 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act�) on 24.5.2005 directing eviction of illegal occupants of the building/land under survey no.489 min, situate at Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar, etc. and prays for quashment thereof, and protection of his possession. 2. Grounds pleaded in support of the prayer are that petitioner is the protected occupancy tenant of a part of the premises, commonly known as Nanda House� since last three decades under a valid lease deed dated 23.9.1977, executed by owners of the house, who left the valley on 3.8.1989, appointing one Sham Lal Kapoor as their attorney to look after or dispose it of on their behalf, who on 5.8.1989, executed a fresh rent deed in his favour, and he continued to be in possession of the house while paying the rent etc. to the concerned. It is further pleaded, that on 25.6.2003, petitioner obtained a decree against the aforesaid attorney of the owner of the premises, when he tried forcible eviction, and despite that the impugned eviction order was passed at the behest of respondent No.6 without holding any enquiry, which renders it arbitrary, particularly because it was passed without hearing the petitioner, even though he filed his objections etc. against the proposed action before the concerned District Magistrate. 3. Materials submitted include photo copies of the lease deed under which petitioner claims the premises to be in his possession, the municipal and other receipts purporting to have been issued to him from time to time, and photo copy of the decree purporting to have been awarded by 2nd. Additional Munsiff, Srinagar in his favour against one Sham Lal Kapoor whereunder, defendant has been perpetually restrained from interfering into possession of plaintiff Navnit Kumar and ejecting him there from otherwise then in due course of law; as also the copy of power of attorney purporting to have been executed by the Nandas in favour of one M. L. Kapoor the earlier attorney holder on 23.8.1989. During course of his brief submissions, the petitioner™s counsel, besides reiterating contents of the writ petition, also contended that proposed eviction against him was totally illegal and would render him shelterless, so the same was liable to be overset, particularly because the concerned District Magistrate, while passing the order, did not adhere to the procedure prescribed for the impugned action which renders the order bad. The counsel also quoted a judgment of this court, which, if necessary, would be discussed in due course. 4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. It appears that the whole proceeding before the District Magistrate concerned, which culminated into issuance of the impugned order, was initiated by one Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Matta, on behalf of the original owner one Navnit Kumar Nanda, as his attorney, with an application for taking over the premises as being Migrant Property� and evict the four illegal occupants mentioned in the application therefrom- the present petitioner figuring at serial no. 3. The application purports to have been accompanied with a power of attorney apparently executed by Navnit Kumar Nanda, Dr. Sunit Kumar Nanda, Ponit Kumar Nanda, Satish Kumar Nanda and Ranjan Nanda, sons of late Shri Puran Bhagat Nanda, whereunder they constituted the said Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Matta S/o Mohd Sidiq Matta R/o Magarmal Bagh, Srinagar as their lawful attorney, in respect of the property under reference. The said power of attorney purports to have been executed on 21.10.2002 with a clear stipulation that the attorney would be authorized to do any act etc. on their behalf in respect of the said property. Thus the conflict essentially appears to revolve round, the lease deeds, & powers of attorney and their consequences. 5. Since the whole controversy arises under the aforesaid Act, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provisions thereof. Sections 4 and 5 run as under: Section 4. Custody of Immovable property - (1) Within 30 days from the commencement of this Act, The District Magistrate shall take over the possession of immovable property, belonging to Migrants, falling within his territorial jurisdiction and shall, on the expiry of said period of 30 days, be deemed to have the custody of such immovable property. Custody of Immovable property - (1) Within 30 days from the commencement of this Act, The District Magistrate shall take over the possession of immovable property, belonging to Migrants, falling within his territorial jurisdiction and shall, on the expiry of said period of 30 days, be deemed to have the custody of such immovable property. (2) The District Magistrate shall take all such steps as may be necessary for preservation and protection of such property; Provided that, possession of such property shall not be handed over to any one save with the express consent of the migrant in writing. Section 5. Eviction of unauthorized occupants. - If any unauthorized occupant of any migrant property refuses or fails on demand to surrender possession thereof to the competent authority, such authority may use such force as is necessary for taking possession of such property and may for this purpose after giving reasonable warning and facility to any women not appearing in public to withdraw, remove or break open any lock, blot or any door or do any other act necessary for the said purpose.� Thus, under the aforementioned provisions, the District Magistrate is authorized to take possession of the immovable property of any migrant, situate within his district and evict any unauthorized occupant therefrom. If such occupant refuses or fails to surrender possession thereof to the District Magistrate on demand, the D.M can use necessary force etc. Now, the gist of petitioner™s case is that, first, the owner of premises under reference is not a migrant in terms of the Act, secondly, that he being a lawful tenant thereof is not an unauthorized occupant, and thirdly, that without following proper procedure the concerned District Magistrate could not have passed the impugned order. In order to appreciate the pleas taken thus again reference shall have to be made to the ˜Act™ for examining their substance. 6. The Migrant� under the Act, means any persons who has migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st. In order to appreciate the pleas taken thus again reference shall have to be made to the ˜Act™ for examining their substance. 6. The Migrant� under the Act, means any persons who has migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st. November, 1989 and is 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 occupation or vocation or otherwise, and is possessed of immovable property in the Valley but is unable to ordinarily reside there due to the disturbed conditions; while an un-authorized occupant� means any person who has encroached upon or taken possession of any immovable property of migrant without his written consent and authority of law. 7. As would percolate from a cumulative perusal of the aforementioned material there is nothing on record to show exactly as to when did the ˜Nandas™ migrate to Jammu and whether or not the lease deed of 1977 purporting to witness the lease of premises under reference in favour of the petitioner photocopy whereof has been annexed, was intact or withdrawn/cancelled before their migration; and as to what was the position regarding possession of the premises in question after execution of the lease deed of 2002 in favour of respondent No. 6 aforementioned and also as to what is the factual situation regarding possession obtaining presently. All these aspects involve intricate question of fact relating to the execution of aforementioned documents, the factum of possession of the property under reference and the question relating to migration of actual owners; which must have been considered by the concerned District Magistrate, while assuming jurisdiction in the matter. No doubt he may have committed some error somewhere which may be liable to be challenged by the aggrieved party. But then the question would be as to what should be the medium of agitating such or any other fault in DMs order. The answer in terms of the Act itself would be an appeal preferable to the Financial Commissioner in terms of Section 7 thereof, which, alongwith some other relevant provisions may be quoted herein below: Section 7. Appeal. But then the question would be as to what should be the medium of agitating such or any other fault in DMs order. The answer in terms of the Act itself would be an appeal preferable to the Financial Commissioner in terms of Section 7 thereof, which, alongwith some other relevant provisions may be quoted herein below: Section 7. Appeal. (1) Any person aggrieved of an order passed under this Act, may file an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue¦¦.: Provided that no such appeal shall be entertained against- ¦¦¦¦¦. (b) an order of eviction unless possession of the property is surrendered to the competent authority; ¦¦¦¦¦� Section 8. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force- (a) no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under this Act, or the rules made thereunder; and (b) no order of any officer or authority passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be called in question in any civil court. Section 11. Act to override other laws. - The provisions of this Act, the rules made and the instructions issued thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or custom or usage or in any contract, express or implied, or in any instrument inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.� 8. The position emerging from the aforesaid provisions is that under the non obstante clause contained in Section 11 above quoted, the Act including rules made and instructions issued thereunder, has overriding effect over other all laws, customs or usages, contracts and instruments inconsistent therewith. Alongwith that under Section 8 which too has overriding effect, the jurisdiction of civil courts to settle, decide or deal with any question or determine any matter arising under the Act or rules made thereunder or any order of officer or authority passed thereunder, cannot be called in question in any civil court, with provision of appeal in Section 7 as aforesaid. The cumulative effect of all these provisions appears to be that the Act is meant to be a self contained code in so far as preservation and protection etc. The cumulative effect of all these provisions appears to be that the Act is meant to be a self contained code in so far as preservation and protection etc. or migrants property is concerned, which vests/creates power thereunder, and provides a specific mode for exercise of that power, and also prescribes the remedial measures against the order of competent authority by way of appeal; preferable before the Financial Commissioner. 9. Confronted with this situation the petitioner™s counsel stated that he is not inclined to invoke the appeal provision aforesaid, because thereunder he would have to surrender possession of the premises to the competent authority before instituting the appeal, and for that reason he has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. Thus to willfully avoid compliance of an integral limb of the appeal provision, the petitioner tries to short circuit the whole process and instead of invoking the statutory remedy provided under the Act itself, has comes with this writ petition, without having taken recourse to the proper and efficacious remedy available under the Act. Plainly speaking, this and other such acts would simply amount to circumventing the ˜Act™ and the procedure laid down thereunder, which, if allowed, would render the ˜Act™ ineffective and, unable to fulfill the objective and purpose for which it has been enacted. 10. In addition thereto in view of the fact that determination of the matter as projected in the writ petition involves consideration of the intricate questions of fact as catalogued above, which as per the petitioner™s counsel have not been correctly, determined by the competent authority this court by considering of this writ petition on all these factual pleas, would practically be hearing an appeal against the impugned order; which does not appear to be proper by any stretch of argumentation, for the simple reason that appellate jurisdiction lies elsewhere. For all that has been stated above, the writ petition is apparently misconceived because in effect it appear to be an appeal against the impugned order and can™t sustain, particularly because it neither contains anything to suggest exercise of power not vested in the District Magistrate or his failure to exercise the power vested in him, nor attributes any malafides to the competent authority; and is accordingly, dismissed at the very threshold.