JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.

1. The appellants being aggrieved of council resolution dated 01.12.2006 whereby CP Thang came to be considered for allotment to village, Bogdang and its circulation vide order dated 09.12.2006 passed by respondent No. 3, filed the writ petition for quashing of the above mentioned orders and also order dated 06.10.2006 whereby the respondent No. 5 was directed by respondent No. 4 to furnish a detailed report for settlement of issue and demarcation of village, CP Thang. The writ petition bearing OWP No. 127/2007 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 15.05.2010 (hereinafter to be referred as the judgment impugned).

2. Appellant being aggrieved of the dismissal of the writ petition, has challenged the same on the following grounds :

(a) that to the Village Turtuk, are attached the vast stretches of land, one of them being CP Thang and also water bodies. They are being enjoyed by the inhabitants forming their common land and in the winter session, CP Thang grows cattle fodder and caters to the requirements of the inhabitants of Village Turtuk and this is evident from Wajib-ul-arz prepared in the recent settlement.

(b) that the respondent No. 1 has not been vested with powers to change the limits of revenue village in view of the land being a kahcharai and a common land but the learned Single Judge has wrongly held in the judgment impugned that the Council has powers for the same. There is nothing in the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) Act, which restricts the operation of the Common Land (Regulation) Act, Kahcharai Act, Land Revenue Act, Jammu and Kashmir Panchyati Raj Act, 1989 and the Village Sanitation Act to Leh District.

(c) that the learned Single Judge has fallen in error while holding in para-3 of the judgment impugned that Bogdang together with CP Thang was erstwhile part of Pak Occupied Kashmir and came to wrested in the year, 1971. This serious error has led to an erroneous finding delivered by the writ court.

(d) that the finding of the Committee constituted by the High Court that CP Thang is a barren land came to be objected to by the appellants by filing objections to the report whereas the respondents did not file objections to the report of the Committee. The finding of the Committee is liable to be set aside as the Committee failed to take into account the findings of the competent forum (Settlement Officer), while submitting the report.

(e) that the learned Single Judge’s findings are based upon wrong interpretation of SRO 182 dated 06.06.2003 as it does not confer any power upon the official respondents to bifurcate the village.

(f) that any allotment of land to the families is to be governed by the provisions of Government order No. Rev(LB) 175/1993 dated 27.12.1993.

3. Mr. P.N. Goja, learned senior counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that CP Thang is in fact a kahcharai land that caters to the residents of village Turtuk, Tehsil Nubra and the official respondents cannot allot the same to any other village. He further argued that the official respondents have no power to bifurcate the village under the LAHDC Act, 1997. He laid much stress that the Committee appointed by the writ court did not take into consideration Wajib-ul-arz in which the grazing rights of the village Turtuk has been prescribed and CP Thang (Kangzey Thang) has been shown as kahcharai of Village Turtuk alone.

4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI appearing for the official respondents has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the order on the basis of the report of the Committee and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Pant, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents has vehemently argued that by virtue of resolution that was impugned in the writ petition, the boundary of the revenue village Turtuk is not being changed and as per SRO 182(supra), the Council has ample powers for allotment, o