1. Briefly stated petitioner™s case is that way back in 2001 he approached respondent No. 3 for purchase of proprietary land measuring 1 kanal situate at Iqbal Abad Srinagar, under survey Nos. 621 and 627 and after his agreement to sell the land paid him an amount of Rs. 6,99,000/- vide cheque No. 0950378 dated 31st March 2001 against the agreed sale price of Rs. 9,20,000/- while remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed for which the sanction requisite under Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 was required. One Ab. Qayoom, however objected to the agreement where upon they learnt that respondents 6, 7 and 8 had forged certain documents like power of attorney and relinquishment deed etc., in effect whereof the ownership rights in said land were claimed to have been vested in respondent no. 8. Aggrieved thereby, he has instituted this writ petition for quashment of sale permission purporting to have been given by Divisional Commissioner on 18th Sept. 2003 along with subsequent conveyance comprising of relinquishment deed etc., details whereof would follow in due course. 2. In reply respondent no. 6 to 8 have pleaded that after agreeing upon transfer of land in favour of respondent no. 6, 3rd respondent the original owner executed an Irrevocable power of attorney in his favour on 2.7.2006 empowering him among other things to apply for alienation permission under the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. He applied for the same which was issued by Divisional Commissioner under his No. Div.Com/relief/MR-2576/2003 dated 18.09.2003 read with corrigendum dated 7th Jan. 2004 subsequent whereto respondent no. 6 executed a relinquishment deed on 6th Jan. 2004 on behalf of respondent no. 3 in favour of respondent no. 7 which was witnesses by mutation No. 8296 of 2004 dated 23.02.2004 also. The said respondent no. 7 sold 14 marlas out of said land to respondent No. 8 under a sale deed executed on 29.09.2005 and registered on 8.10.2005 handing over possession, to her, which was followed by mutation No. 9162 attested on 5.11.2005 in her favour. It is further pleaded that all through the respondents no. The said respondent no. 7 sold 14 marlas out of said land to respondent No. 8 under a sale deed executed on 29.09.2005 and registered on 8.10.2005 handing over possession, to her, which was followed by mutation No. 9162 attested on 5.11.2005 in her favour. It is further pleaded that all through the respondents no. 3 to 5 did not object to any part of aforesaid transaction because they had already received the consideration amount and as such the petitioner™s case and claim was totally unfounded. 3. From their side respondents No. 3 to 5 have filed their reply through post which has been received in the Registry and forms a part of the record wherein while admitting receipt of Bank draft of Rs. 99,000/- and cheque for Rs. 6/- lacs from them they have declined having ever agreed to sell the land to petitioners or executed any document in their favour. Similar is their stand against respondent 6 to 8 also according to which they deny execution of power of attorney attributed by them to respondent no. 3 regarding which they claim to have lodged a complaint with crime branch also. In their response to aforesaid reply of respondents 3 to 5, the petitioners have through supplementary affidavit explained that respondent no. 3 has executed power of attorney in favour of his son, respondent no. 5, whereafter under declaration deed executed by respondent no. 4 his wife, respondent no. 3 received an amount of Rs. 7/- lac from them, as sale price of the land in question which was later raised to 9.20 lacs and have insisted that their stand to the contrary is belied by documents on record. During course of submissions learned counsel appearing for petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 have mainly reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures on record, while none has appeared on behalf of respondents 3 to 5. State and its functionaries though represented by Mr. M.A. Rathore, has not taken any stand in the matter. 4. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter, which appears to be one of those typical cases where migrant land owners have either been exploited by mischievous elements under false pretexts or the migrants themselves have transacted transfers of their properties in dubious manner to dupe others, resulting in their fluctuating stands regarding property transfers. Now as it is respondent no. Now as it is respondent no. 3 is admitted owner of land in question while respondents 4 and 5 are his wife and son respectively with their own claims in the land. While 3rd respondent denies having entered into any transaction whatsoever either with petitioner or respondents 6 to 8, his wife the 4th respondent admits receipt of the Bank draft and cheque as aforesaid from petitioners. Simultaneous to that is the alleged transaction claimed by respondents 6 to 8 under the registered power of attorney in favour of respondent no. 6 attributed to respondent no. 3 and the receipts of amounts purporting to have been paid to him with 3rd respondents complaint regarding forging of this document already pending investigation with the crime branch in the alleged fraud attributed to respondents 6 to 8. 5. In a cumulative consideration of the entire gamut of facts and fiction whatever as above the vital questions that emerge are; first, as to what is the veracity of power of attorney stated to have been executed by 3rd respondent in favour of respondent no. 6 and the receipts executed in that behalf; secondly, whether or not the receipts and other documents attributable to respondents 4 and 5 in favour of the petitioners are genuine; thirdly, who after the chain of transactions that is claimed to have been entered into by parties inter-se is in possession of the land in question, and finally what is the status of respondent no. 4 and 5 in relation to the land in question with respondent no. 3, undoubted original owner. All these questions in given circumstances appear to be shrouded in the mist of triangular claims and counter claims which require to be clarified before an adjudication of the matter which essentially involves the ownership/possessory rights/claims of parties determination whereof requires hard evidence particularly in view of the complicated details those would obviously attend the aforesaid questions which certainly cannot be determined in writ proceedings and have to be left to be determined by competent civil of other competent forum. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice petitioner™s plea that a civil suit against respondents 3 to 5 being migrants, would be barred by the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant (Stay of proceedings) Act 1997�, due to which petitioner has but to prosecute this writ petition for want of an alternate remedy. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice petitioner™s plea that a civil suit against respondents 3 to 5 being migrants, would be barred by the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant (Stay of proceedings) Act 1997�, due to which petitioner has but to prosecute this writ petition for want of an alternate remedy. On consideration, however, the contention appears to be slightly mis placed for the reason that sale permission impugned herein is appealable under the very Act whereunder it has been granted i.e. Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997�, which can be challenged through an appeal only, because of the bar against institution of civil suits against actions taken or orders passed thereunder, which by itself constitutes a circumstances against maintainability of this writ petition in present form. In addition thereto the main thrust of petitioner™s relief as sought in that matter is against respondents 6 to 8 only and what they essentially challenge is the said sale permission. In that view of the matter the contention raised does not appear to sustain. Otherwise also even for application of J&K Migrant Stay of proceedings Act, 1997 certain questions of fact have to be gone into, like status of the disputed property within frame of the Act and effect of the claims/counter claims of parties thereupon, and actual possession of the land on spot etc with reference to above mentioned factual aspects. 7. In cumulative circumstances as cataloged above, the writ petition does not appear to, be maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed in lemini, with liberty to petitioner to agitate her rights in the proper forum if advised. Contempt No. 402/06 In view of order passed in main petition, the contempt petition does not survive for adjudication which is accordingly dismissed.