The petitioners question the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bhaderwah s order dated 04.01.2003 whereby their Complaint that Brij Lal had acquired grazing rights in Compartment No.3 of Dhar Gill on the basis of forged documents and grazing permits, was rejected. They seek directions against the State-respondents for permitting them to graze cattle at Dhar Gill compartment No.3 Jitota, Bhalessa Range. Contesting the petitioners claim to graze their cattle in Compartment No. 3 urging that Yousaf Gujjar could not, in law, vest any rights in them which were personal to him, the State respondents support the Divisional Forest Officer s order urging that despite failure of the petitioners to produce any material in support of their claim regarding grazing rights over the Pasture, the Divisional Forest Officer had still left the petitioners free to prove as how were they entitled to use the pasture which had been used by Yousaf Gujjar before his migration to Mukaryan-Punjab and therefore, the matter being still open, the petitioners cannot maintain the Writ Petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bhaderwah has rejected the petitioners Complaint against Brij Lal-respondent No.4 relying on the report of Range Officer, Bhalessa who, on the basis of the records, had reported that there was no merit in the petitioners Complaint, in that, the grazing permits issued in favour of the respondent were genuine and he had not fabricated any documents to enjoy grazing rights over the land. Despite having failed to sustain their Claim before the Divisional Forest Officer of having grazing rights over half of the portion of Dhar Gill, the Divisional Forest Officer has still left it open to the petitioners to prove their entitlement to graze cattle in Dhar Gill. The petitioners Claim for issuing mandamus to the respondents to permit them to graze cattle in the pasture depends on the establishment of their right so to do, which they are required to establish before the Divisional Forest Officer. In this view of the matter, when the Divisional Forest Officer has kept the issue of petitioners Claim to grazing rights on half of the portion of Dhar Ghill open, there is no scope for interference with the Divisional Forest Officer s order and the petitioners are required to substantiate their Claim before the Forest Officer. In this view of the matter, when the Divisional Forest Officer has kept the issue of petitioners Claim to grazing rights on half of the portion of Dhar Ghill open, there is no scope for interference with the Divisional Forest Officer s order and the petitioners are required to substantiate their Claim before the Forest Officer. No case for issuance of directions is, therefore, made out. This Writ Petition is, accordingly found without merit, hence dismissed.