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. 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 nothing wrong in the government order or for that matter in the order of the Deputy Commissioner Kargil to transfer the state land for various state owned organisations/departments for public purpose. The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, has thus found nothing wrong in the government order or for that matter in the order of the Deputy Commissioner Kargil to transfer the state land for various state owned organisations/departments for public purpose. It needs to be mentioned that as per the revenue record perused by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, the government of Jammu and Kashmir vide Cabinet decision No. 63 dated 20.08.1986 had approved allotment of 100 acre of state land of village Ufti-Pipiting Skidsharak Kargil out of Haftal Canal Area to Veterinary Department for development of fodder farm. Subsequently an area of 864 kanals in total came to be transferred to the said department. Since Haftal canal could not become functional because of the diversion of water of Haftal Nallah for Haftal Hydro Project, the fodder farm could not be developed by the Veterinary Department. The land which was allotted to Veterinary department came to be allotted to various Central and state government departments by the district administration on its own without following due procedure. Some land out of the state land also came to be allotted to private parties. 10. Having considered the entire material on record and giving hearing to the parties, the Financial Commissioner ordered the cancellation of allotment of state land in khasra No. 1429 in village Ufti-Pipiting Skidsharak Kargil made in favour of private parties along with subsequent mutations attested in favour of said private parties. A further direction was issued to the concerned authorities to regularise the transfer of state land earlier transferred in favour of various state owned organisations/departments for public purpose. 11. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. M.A. Qayoom, counsel for the petitioners. I am not convinced that the land which was subject matter of transfer in favour of Veterinary department is the land over which the villagers have a claim of grazing of the livestock on the basis of some entries in Wajib-ul-Arz. It needs no emphasis to say that a big chunk of government land measuring 864 kanals was transferred to the Veterinary department vide Cabinet decision No. 63 dated 20.08.1986. This Cabinet decision and the subsequent allotment of land in favour of the Veterinary department is not challenged by any person including the petitioners herein. It needs no emphasis to say that a big chunk of government land measuring 864 kanals was transferred to the Veterinary department vide Cabinet decision No. 63 dated 20.08.1986. This Cabinet decision and the subsequent allotment of land in favour of the Veterinary department is not challenged by any person including the petitioners herein. It is this land which remained unutilized by the Veterinary department due to the circumstances narrated above, which later on came to be transferred to various government departments and some private parties by the district administration without following due process of law. 12. The Financial Commissioner has taken cognizance of the entire development and has rightly come to the conclusion that the land allotted in favour of private parties de hors the procedure, needs to be retrieved. He has also taken a correct view in the matter that the land which stands allotted to various government departments is for raising necessary infrastructure for public purpose deserves to be regularized. The land in the village is more than 864 canals and the same, if at all reserved for grazing purposes needs to be preserved. 13. This petition, insofar as it pertains to the challenge thrown to the impugned order, is found to be without merit and, therefore, to that extent dismissed. However having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners are relegated to filing of a fresh application before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, supported with the relevant revenue record including the entries in Wajib-ul-Arz for claiming the preservation of land for grazing purposes. Should the petitioners move such an application before the Financial Commissioner, he shall give due consideration to it and pass appropriate orders as he may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be clarified that the request of the petitioners, if any made, shall be restricted to the land in the village other than land with respect to which the Financial Commissioner has passed his order dated 20th July 2022. 14. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.