The court affirmed that the land in question belongs to village Saboo and is not designated as grazing land for village Shey, emphasizing the limitations of its jurisdiction in reviewing factual determinations.

JUDGMENT :

1. The mutation bearing no. 793 dated 30.10.1987 attested in favour of the private-respondents in respect of land measuring 195 kanals and 5 marlas comprising survey no. 2858 situated at village Saboo Tehsil Leh, came to be assailed by the petitioners through the medium of a revision petition before the respondent No. 1, and it needs to be taken note of, that the revision petition began with the very first averment made in the para- (a) that the petitioners have rights/interests over the land which is pasture of village Shey. The revision petition was preferred on the following grounds:

a) That the impugned mutation has not been attested in conformity with Council Order No. 21-C of 1936 which pertains to lands broken up (Nautor) and the mandate of Standing Order No. 23-A also has not been followed.

b) That the land in question is a grazing ground of village Shey.

c) That the mutation has been attested at the back of the petitioners, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners at the time of attestation of mutation.

2. The revision petition was dismissed by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 10.09.2013, thereby holding that the land which forms the subject matter of mutation falls within the village Saboo and the natives of the Village Shey have no right or claim over the land forming part of another village and there is no record available to show that the land in question is identified as ‘pasture’ for village Shey. The said findings were recorded by the respondent No. 1 by placing reliance upon the report of the Assistant Commissioner, who was tasked to furnish the detailed report after visiting the spot.

3. The petitioners have now approached this court through the medium of this writ petition thereby assailing the order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the respondent No.1 on the following grounds:

a) That the land which is the subject matter of the mutation in question was part of village Saboo is absolutely incorrect, as the same falls 5 kms away from hillock Takna, and the village Shey is hardly 1 km from hillock Takna. The petitioners are using the slope of hillock Takna and the adjoining land, for grazing of their cattle, and the record maintained by the Revenue authorities clearly shows that the grazing field on the east side extends from “Baida Shey” to “Shey Manla Takna” of village Saboo” meaning thereby that beyond the place Takna, village Saboo has no grazing ground.

b) That the private respondents could not have sought the attestation of mutation in their favour in respect of grazing land because the grazing rights are available to all the villagers whether they belong to village Saboo or Shey.

c) That the respondent No.1 has relied upon the report of the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue which was factually incorrect.

3. The private respondents have filed the response, stating therein that the writ petition is not maintainable, as this court cannot convert itself to the court of appeal and indulge in the reappreciation or re-evaluation of evidence. It is also averred that the petitioners have again raised questions of facts, already taken note of, discussed threadbare and decided by the respondent No.1. It is further stated that the petitioners had challenged mutation no. 793 dated 30.10.1987 after a delay of 18 years and during that period the private respondents cultivated the land, raised plantation thereon, the government also sanctioned irrigation scheme, and the respondents fenced the land partly with walling and partly with barbed wire, and the petitioners never raised any objection. In the year 1996, the petitioners filed a complaint before the Tehsildar in respect of the impugned mutation and the Tehsildar vide order dated 28.9.1996 rejected the complaint/objection, thereby holding that the inhabitants of village Shey have no right over the land. There is absolutely no evidence to show that even a small part of land in question is either of village Shey or the villagers of Shey have any righ