The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the Land order and the need for regularization of the allotment of state land for public purposes, while also emphasizing the preservation of land reserved for grazing purposes.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioners claim to be the representatives of villagers of village Ufti-Pipiting Skidsharak Kargil and are aggrieved by order dated 20.07.2022 passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, UT of Ladakh on a representation moved by the petitioners against the allotment of state land made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kargil vide his order dated 09.01.2020.

2. Briefly stated, the facts projected by the petitioners in this petition are that there is a huge chunk of land in the village, which as per Wajib-ul-Arz of the villages is reserved for grazing of livestock and, therefore, every villager has a right and is entitled to take his flock for grazing purposes in the said land.

3. It is submitted that in terms of Cabinet decision No. 163 dated 03.08.1987 it has been decided that command area development of Haftal Canal, constructed by debit to Desert Development Fund, would be utilized and the District Development Commissioner would draw up scheme for allotment of this land. The requirement of Animal/Sheep Husbandry Department to the extent of 100 acres and Agriculture Department to the extent of 300 acres, and Forest Department shall be kept in view. The surplus land would be allotted to the people for agricultural purposes.

4. It is submitted that subsequent to the Cabinet decision aforesaid, 864 kanals of land were handed over to the Veterinary department out of the Command Area of the Haftal Canal. However, the Haftal Canal could never become functional because the water of the concerned Haftal Nallah was reportedly diverted for the Haftal Hydroelectric Project later. Due to non-availability of canal water, the Veterinary department also could not develop the fodder form for which the land was allotted to it.

5. It is submitted that taking benefit of aforementioned development, the district administration started allotting the land from the aforesaid khasra numbers of their own without following the procedure of law, particularly the Leh and Kargil District Area (Allotment of State Land) Order 1993 [“the Land order”]. This fact was brought to the notice of the DDC Kargil by the respondent No. 3 by communication dated 7 th December 2003. No action was, however, taken by the Deputy Commissioner Kargil on the communication of respondent No. 3. As a matter of fact the Deputy Commissioner who is also the chief executive officer of LAHDC Kargil himself indulged in allotting the land to different government/semi-government agencies. The matter was thus brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 against such allotment made by the District Development Commissioner, Kargil.

6. Respondent No. 1 vide order impugned rejected the representation of the petitioners and therefore this petition. The impugned order passed on by the Financial Commissioner is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the allotment of state land, which is meant for meeting the agriculture needs of the villagers, to various government departments by the DDC Kargil is contrary to law and in violation of the Land order, and that as per Wajib-ul-Arz the land cannot be allotted by any authority to the state owned organisations/departments and ought to be reserved for grazing purposes.

7. The transfer of land for Veterinary department for fodder development, and on its failure to utilize it, its allotment to various other government department is in violation of Land order. In brief, the grievance of the petitioners is that the state land which as per Wajib-ul-Arz is reserved for grazing purposes for the benefit of villagers cannot be put to use other than the one it is reserved for.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the perusal of the impugned order it clearly transpires that the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, has gone through whole gamut of the controversy and has, on the basis of revenue record available, found the land to be the state land. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, has thus found no