JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J.:- 1. Petition on hand arises out of dispute between the parties regarding a strip of land measuring 08 marlas comprising Survey No. 1837 Min. and shops standing thereon situated at Qasba Baghat Anantnag (herein disputed property). Petitioner on the strength of averments made in the petition seeks quashment of Orders dated 3-12-2009 & 16-11-2011 passed by District Magistrate, Anantnag as also report submitted by Tehsildar, Anantnag to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag on 15-11-2011. They, further seek a writ of Mandamus commanding them not to evict petitioners or their tenants from disputed property (shops constructed on the disputed land) and allow them to run their business from said premises free of interference. Before crystallizing the controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate to have an over view of background facts. 2. Petitioners 1 to 4 claim to be descendents of one Kashi Nath Matoo who according to petitioners was all along in possession of the disputed property, as owned thereof. Shri Kashi Nath Matoo is no more and is survived by petitioners 1 to 4. Petitioners claim to have executed a general power of attorney on 29th September 2007 in favour of Shri Bashir Ahmad Khan S/o Haji Shahnawaz Khan R/p Uttersoo, Brariangan, Tehsil Shangus District Anantnag, (through whom present petition is filed), as they because of migration were not in a position to look after the disputed property. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved that respondents 11 to 14 without any right or interest in the disputed property, are keen to unauthorizedly encroach upon the property without petitioners' consent and in violation of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act) 1997. Petitioners admit that the sale deed is claimed to have been executed by their father Shri Kashi Nath Matoo, in favour of respondent No. 11 and 12, but hasten to add that the sale deed has not been acted upon for last 30 years and is not reflected in the revenue records. It is pleaded that petitioners' father and thereafter petitioners have been all along in possession of disputed property and have at no point of time parted with its possession. The sale deed is said to have been put to challenge in a Civil Suit in the Court of Learned Munsiff Anantnag. It is pleaded that petitioners' father and thereafter petitioners have been all along in possession of disputed property and have at no point of time parted with its possession. The sale deed is said to have been put to challenge in a Civil Suit in the Court of Learned Munsiff Anantnag. It is stated that the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution during the pendency of Civil Transfer application filed by respondent No. 12 and 14 before the High Court and while order requiring the trial court to keep its hands off the suit was in operation. 4. Petitioners' case is that District Magistrate Anantnag vide order dated 03-12-2009, at the instance of respondent No. 11 to 14 ordered eviction of occupants of the disputed property namely Gul Muhammad S/o Ghulam Mohammad R/o Hakura, Ab. Aziz Koka S/o Mohammad Akbar R/o Kohgun Verinag and Ab. Rashid Ganie R/o Kulgam which according to petitioners are their tenants from the disputed property and directed Tehsildar Anantnag to execute the order and also assess rentals required to be recovered from them. District Magistrate, Anantnag on an application filed by petitioners' attorney is said to have allowed tenants earlier ordered to be evicted to carry on business in their respective premises. The order dated 13-01-2010 is said to have been quashed in an appeal before Financial Commissioner, (Revenue), Jammu and Kashmir and the appellate Authority vide Order dated 29th June 2010 stayed the order. It is next pleaded that respondents 11 to 14 took undue advantage of the sale deed, made an attempt to get it reflected in the revenue records and an effort was thwarted by the petitioners by filing an application before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, whereupon, Tehsildar Anantnag was directed not to change the record, unless authorized by "Competent forum". Tehsildar Anantnag according to petitioners, in an utter disregard of the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag and without conducting spot inspection attested mutation vide No. 10143 dated 22-12-2009 on the sale deed executed on 18th August 1969. It is pleaded that mutation order came to be challenged before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag in an appeal, that appeal was allowed, the mutation order was set aside vide Order dated 2-3-2011 with a direction to Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Anantnag to conduct enquiry into the matter. It is pleaded that mutation order came to be challenged before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag in an appeal, that appeal was allowed, the mutation order was set aside vide Order dated 2-3-2011 with a direction to Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Anantnag to conduct enquiry into the matter. However, the Order dated 2-3-2011 was admittedly set aside in review by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag and Assistant Commissioner Revenue and Tehsildar Anantnag were directed to conduct denovo enquiry into the matter. 5. Petitioners not satisfied with the Order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag claim to have filed an appeal before Settlement Commissioner and obtained status quo order on 21st October 2011. District Magistrate, Anantnag is said to have passed fresh order on 16th November 2011 directing Tehsildar Anantnag to pass "appropriate orders with regard to correction and rectification of the records and evict unauthorized occupants as ordered vide Order dated 3-12-2009". Tehsildar Anantnag is said to have submitted a factually incorrect report on 15th November 2011 to District Magistrate Anantnag. Petitioners are aggrieved with order dated 3-12-2009, whereby, District Magistrate Anantnag had directed eviction of Gul Muhammad and others (according to petitioners tenants of the disputed property). The order dated 16th November 2011, whereby District Magistrate, Anantnag had asked Tehsildar, Anantnag to pass "appropriate orders with regard to correction and rectification of the records and evict the unauthorized occupants as ordered vide Order dated 3-12-2009. They are also aggrieved with report submitted by the Tehsildar, Anantnag on 15-11-2011. The orders and report are assailed on the grounds are detailed in the petition. The orders are said to have been made in hot haste, without application of mind and without adherence to Rules and Regulations. 6. Respondents in their reply narrate the facts and the events as set out in the petition. It is pleaded that the disputed property was sold by Shri Kashi Nath Matoo to Shri Jia Lal Koul predecessor in interest of the respondents and that the respondents have all along been in possession of the disputed property. 6. Respondents in their reply narrate the facts and the events as set out in the petition. It is pleaded that the disputed property was sold by Shri Kashi Nath Matoo to Shri Jia Lal Koul predecessor in interest of the respondents and that the respondents have all along been in possession of the disputed property. It is pleaded that mere attestation of mutation of the property left by Shri Kashi Nath Matoo at the time of his death in favour of the petitioners cannot create any rights in disputed property in their favour as the disputed property was not with Shri Kashi Nath Matoo at the time of his death and had been much earlier perpetually transferred to the respondents. Shri Jia Lal Koul is said to have constructed shops on the suit land after obtaining permission from Municipal Council, Anantnag. It is denied that persons in occupation of the disputed property were inducted by respondents as tenants. It is further pleaded that petitioners had no right to appoint and constitute attorney to deal with the disputed property and therefore attorney appointed did not have any right to act on behalf of the petitioners vis-a-vis disputed property. Failure to get the sale deed reflected in revenue records according to respondents was due to inadvertence and would not divest them of the proprietary rights in the disputed property. 7. I have gone through the pleadings as well as record available on the file. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Petitioners in terms of Section 7 of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997 had a right to question Order of the District Magistrate, Anantnag dated 3-12-2009, impugned herein, in appeal before the Appellate Authority mentioned therein. Petitioners have not availed the efficacious remedy available to them under the aforementioned Act. They instead have choosen to invoke writ jurisdiction of the Court two years after the order was passed and acted upon. Petition must fail on this ground alone. Independent of the above conclusion, let us go through the Order dated 3rd December 2009, to find out whether it suffers from any jurisdictional error or arbitrariness. 9. They instead have choosen to invoke writ jurisdiction of the Court two years after the order was passed and acted upon. Petition must fail on this ground alone. Independent of the above conclusion, let us go through the Order dated 3rd December 2009, to find out whether it suffers from any jurisdictional error or arbitrariness. 9. District Magistrate, Anantnag-respondent No. 4 herein on receipt of the complaint that migrant property (disputed property) has been encroached upon by Gul Mohammad and Others, did not act in the matter with undue haste or slip-shod manner. He instead asked Tehsildar Anantnag, to hold an enquiry and after Tehsildar Anantnag on such enquiry vide his No. 507/OQ dated 20th June 2009 reported that there was substance in the complaint and the disputed property belonged to complainants (respondent No. 11 to 14) herein and was encroached upon by Shri Gul Mohammad and others, District Magistrate, Anantnag decided to hear petitioners, petitioners were heard at their request and afforded an opportunity to justify their possession of the migrant property. Petitioners though given adequate and reasonable opportunity to produce documents to impart legality to their possession, failed to do so. Respondent No. 4 thereafter, recorded satisfaction that the disputed property was migrant property within the meaning of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997 and was in unauthorized occupation of Gul Mohammad and others and that eviction under Section 5 and 13 of the Act was warranted. He accordingly passed the order impugned in the petition, whereby Tehsildar, Anantnag was directed to evict the unauthorized occupants/contraveners from disputed property and also to assess the rentals required to be recovered from them. 10. The fact that affected parties claimed by the petitioners to have been inducted as tenants by them were heard before the Order dated 3rd December 2009, was passed is also evident from the respondent No. 4's Order dated 13th June 2010. It appears that after Order dated 3rd December 2009 was passed affected parties approached respondent No. 4 with a request to give them a brief respite so that they could organize their affairs and find alternative business premises, wherefrom they could continue their business. Respondent No. 4 accorded consideration to their claim and allowed them to carry on their business till the parties substantiated their claim. Respondent No. 4 accorded consideration to their claim and allowed them to carry on their business till the parties substantiated their claim. This by itself would make it clear, that respondent No. 4 acted in accordance with prescribed procedure and principle of natural justice. 11. The Order dated 13th January 2010 was questioned in an appeal before Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Jammu and Kashmir and vide Order dated 29th January 2010. The Order allowing contraveners/occupants to carry on their business from the disputed property was stayed. The appeal vide order dated 25th July 2012 was dismissed as withdrawn. This was presumably done after the respondents 11 to 14 succeed in getting order from respondent No. 4 directing Tehsildar, Anantnag to evict unauthorized occupants as ordered vide Order dated 3-12-2009 and follow up order No. DCA/Mig/Comp(265)09/671 dated 17-09-2011 whereby-respondent No. 4 directed Tehsildar Anantnag to implement Order dated 3rd December 2009 "in toto and takeover the property" on his behalf as custodian of migrant property in terms of Section 4 of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997. The order was implemented as is evident from the report of Naib Tehsildar who headed the team constituted by Tehsildar Anantnag vide No. 410-15/Mig/Misc Dated 28th November 2011 to implement the order. The compliance report submitted by Naib Tehsildar Anantnag would reveal that out of 5 occupants, 2 voluntarily vacate premises along with goods while 3 other premises were locked by Naib Tehsildar, Anantnag. The order dated 3rd December 2009 questioned in the present petition filed on 30-12-2011 therefore stood implemented much before the petition was filed. Looking from every angle the Order dated 3-12-2009 does not call for interference. 12. It appears that while respondent No. 11 to 14 were entangled with occupants/contraveners over the disputed property in proceedings under Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act) 1997, they now conscious that no effort was made by their predecessors in interest to get the sale deed executed by Shri Kashi Nath Matoo in their favour as reflected in revenue records, initiated proceedings to get mutation attested in their favour. They succeeded in getting mutation attested vide mutation No. 10143. The order was questioned in appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The appeal was allowed and vide Order dated 1st March 2011, mutation order was set aside. They succeeded in getting mutation attested vide mutation No. 10143. The order was questioned in appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. The appeal was allowed and vide Order dated 1st March 2011, mutation order was set aside. Respondent No. 11 to 14 filed a petition to seek review of Order dated 1st March 2011, whereby mutation order was set aside. The review petition was allowed vide Order dated 11th October 2011 and Tehsildar, Anantnag asked to conduct a denovo enquiry with regard to ownership rights of the disputed property and pass order as per law. The order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag dated 11th October 2011 was questioned in a revision petition before Settlement Commissioner, Kashmir and the revisional forum vide order dated 21-10-2011 directed parties to maintain status quo. In the meantime, Tehsildar, Anantnag pursuant to direction of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag dated 11th October 2011 conducted enquiry and submit his report on 15th November 2011, to Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, wherein ownership rights of respondent No. 11 to 14 in disputed property were confirmed. Respondent No. 11 to 14 emboldened by the report submitted by Tehsildar, Anantnag on 15th November 2011 laid a motion before District Magistrate, Anantnag praying for direction to Tehsildar, Anantnag to attest mutation in their favour on the basis of report submitted. Respondent No. 4 vide Order dated 16th November 2011- questioned in the present petition, directed Tehsildar, Anantnag to pass appropriate orders with regard to correction and rectification of the record. Tehsildar, Anantnag in compliance of the aforementioned order attested mutation of the disputed property in favour of respondent No. 11 to 14. The order was passed during the pendency of revision petition before Settlement Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir and while the status quo order dated 21-10-2011 was in force. However, the revision petition stands dismissed vide Order dated 27th February 2013. 13. The revisional court has upheld Order dated 11-10-2011 of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag in the capacity of Collector in review petition. The legality of the respondent No. 4's Order dated 16th November 2011 and report of the Tehsildar, Anantnag dated 15th November 2011, has been examined and approved by Settlement Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir while dealing with the revision petition. The report and order otherwise also do not suffer from any infirmity as would prompt this court to exercise writ jurisdiction. 14. The report and order otherwise also do not suffer from any infirmity as would prompt this court to exercise writ jurisdiction. 14. It hardly needs any emphasis that the order passed under Section 5 or 13 of Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act 1997 do not extinguish right in immovable property. Section 4 declares District Magistrate Custodian of Immovable property belonging to migrants falling within his territorial jurisdiction and declares such property deemed to be in his custody. Section 5 empowers District Magistrate to evict unauthorized occupants from migrant property. Similarly, mere attestation of mutation does not create or extinguish such rights in the immovable property in respect whereof mutation is attested. It would be appropriate to reproduce observation made in this regard by Settlement Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir while dealing with the matter, in Order dated 27th November 2013: "It goes without saying that orders passed by Revenue authorities in mutations do neither create nor extinguish one's rights, title and interest in the property as held by privy council as early as in 1926 in case of Nirman Singh and others v. Rudra Pratab Naryan Singh, AIR 1926 PC-100. The law laid down has been followed by courts in the court, more so in J&K especially in the case of Ahsan Dar v. Mohd. Dar, Air 1963 J&K 15 JKJ Soft JKJ/22620 and Gh. Mohd. Bhat and others v. Ramzan Bhat and others dated 27.05.2005 in CSA No. 28/1989." 15. True that the District Magistrate, Anantnag while passing Order dated 17th September 2011 directing Tehsildar, Anantnag to implement Order dated 3-12-2009 has acted in an inappropriate manner and vide Order dated 16th November 2011 directed correction and rectification of the records, least realized that Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Settlement Commissioner, Kashmir were seized of the matter and even directed maintenance of status quo. District Magistrate, Anantnag has also failed to realize that respondent No. 11 to 14's application, disposed of vide Order dated 16th November 2011 only asked for attestation of mutation and not implementation of the Order dated 3rd December 2009 and there was no occasion for him to direct Tehsildar Anantnag to implement order dated 3-12-2009 as no such prayer was made. However for the reasons discussed elsewhere these lapses do not impact final outcome of the petition, moreso, before proceeding under both Superior Authorities i.e. Financial Commissioner Revenue and Settlement Commissioner, Kashmir stand concluded. 16. The parties are entangled in a Civil suit wherein, sale deed, to have been executed by predecessor of petitioner is questioned and so is the fall out of failure of respondent No. 11 to 14 to get the sale deed reflected in the revenue records immediately after its execution is also subject matter of the suit. Their rights are expected to be determined by the Civil Court on the anvil of the evidence brought on record. In any case, a case for exercise of writ jurisdiction is not made out. For the reasons discussed writ petition is dismissed. The civil court, however, shall deal with the civil suit, if any, pending between the parties, unmindful of observations made herein.