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. 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, occupation, efficient use and management of land. 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, occupation, efficient use and management of land. He further argued that the Munsiff (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Nubra was appointed as Commissioner vide order dated 28.12.2012 passed by this Court and pursuant to that the Munsiff JMIC, Nubra submitted a report in which it has been stated that CP Thang is a barren land full of small pebbles and boulders with thorny bushes and shrubs growing in small quantity. It is also stated that CP Thang has been never used as a kahcharai of any particular village. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that CP Thang along with village Turtuk was under the occupation of Pakistan and the same was liberated in the year, 1971 and it became the part of the District, Leh. The respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 01.12.2006 on agenda No. 28 that pertained to land of CP Thang, Nubra, decided that SDM Nubra i.e. respondent No. 5 herein be directed to demarcate the land for distribution among the people of Village Bogdang to CP Thang and prior to that respondent No. 4 had directed respondent No. 5 to submit a detailed report with regard to the decision taken in the meeting chaired by the then Deputy Commissioner, Leh with the representatives of respective villages. CP Thang area/land was demarcated by the revenue staff for distribution among 331 families of CP Thang, Chulangkha and Bogdang villages. The appellants, who were the residents of the village Turtuk challenged the above mentioned decisions by way of writ petition on the ground that CP Thang is a kahcharai of village Turtuk and further that the respondent No. 1 has exercised the jurisdiction in breach of Common Land (Regulation Act) and further that only the land that has been transferred to the Council under Chapter VII can be allotted for use and occupation. The reliance was placed upon certain communications issued by Assistant Commissioner, Nubra. 8. The reliance was placed upon certain communications issued by Assistant Commissioner, Nubra. 8. The official respondents filed the reply in which it was stated that CP Thang is a barren land measuring 1827 kanals situated at a distance more than 15 kms from Village, Turtuk whereas village Chulungkha is 2 kms from the said land towards northwest. Prior to 1971, Village Turtuk was a part of Skardoo Tehsil under occupation of Pakistan and official respondents had no access to these records so as to ascertain the actual position of the said land. In the year, 1971, the village Turtuk after its liberation became a part of India and no revenue record was available on the basis of which the boundary of said village including the kahcharai and common land could be determined. It was also stated that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nubra has issued order without consultation of other nearby villagers of village Chulungkha and Bogdang. Further it was also averred that pursuant to the decision of the Council, the SDM was asked to demarcate the land for allotment of land to Villages from Bogdang to Thang which included Turtuk as well. The allotment was to be made as per norms and guidelines issued by the Government vide Government order No. Rev(LB) 175 of 1993 dated 27.12.1993 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the concerned Revenue Village under which command area falls would have first priority in matter of allotment, then villages falling in patwar halqa, tehsil and so on. Further it was stated that the LAHDC, Leh has been vested with powers of allotment of land vide SRO 182(supra) dated 06.06.2003 issued by the Revenue Department. It was also the stand of the official respondents that in absence of the revenue record, CP Thang is to be considered as State land. 9. The private respondents also filed their response and categorically stated that the land in question was not kahcharai land and no grazing land has been allotted to any person and further no river passes through CP Thang. It was also stated that the distance between Bogdang and CP Thang is only 5 kms. Besides these, certain other objections were also raised by the private respondents those may not be relevant for the consideration of the present controversy between the parties. 10. It was also stated that the distance between Bogdang and CP Thang is only 5 kms. Besides these, certain other objections were also raised by the private respondents those may not be relevant for the consideration of the present controversy between the parties. 10. The first contention raised by the appellants was that the learned Single Judge has not rightly come to the conclusion that the CP Thang, locally called as Kangzey Thang, is a vacant barren land and that the Committee appointed by the writ court had ignored the Wajib-ul-arz prepared during the settlement proceedings. The Committee appointed by the writ court comprising of three officers i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner, Leh, SDM, Nubra and Tehsildar Settlement, Leh for verification and spot inspection submitted a report in which it was stated that disputed CP Thang locally known as Kangzey Thang is a vacant barren land measuring approximately 1827 kanals is owned by the State. Further that CP Thang area does not fall within the territorial limits of Bogdang and it falls within the territorial limits of village Turtuk and Chulungkha and further CP Thang is 07 kms away from Bogdang and 12 kms. and 1 km. from village Turtuk and Mohlla Grari of village Turtuk respectively. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance upon the said report came to the conclusion that CP Thang is a vacant barren land measuring approximately 1827 kanals and is owned by the State. However, this Court vide its order dated 28.02.2012 taking into note the contention of the appellant that the report (wajib-ul-arz) prepared during the settlement operations by the Settlement Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer, Tehsildar, Naib Tehsildar, Girdawar reflects the disputed land of CP Thang as grazing land, appointed Munsiff Nubra, as local Commissioner to ascertain true and correct factual position regarding CP Thang and further the Commissioner was also directed to find out as to whether or not the villagers would graze their animals in the shrubs and bushes of the land. The Munsiff, Nubra submitted the detailed report on 17.05.2012 and after detailed discussion arrived at the following conclusion : “1. CP Thang is a barren land full of small pebbles and boulders with thorny bushes and shrubs growing in small quantity. 2. A Masjid as well as Mandir are present at CP Thang which can be visited by any passerby. No priest or other incharge was present there. CP Thang is a barren land full of small pebbles and boulders with thorny bushes and shrubs growing in small quantity. 2. A Masjid as well as Mandir are present at CP Thang which can be visited by any passerby. No priest or other incharge was present there. The presence of both a mandir and a Masjid on CP Thang shows that it was done by the army as the land from its liberation from Pakistan in 1971 till 1999 was under the army. 3. From 1971 till now there is no change in the nature of the land and it is still the same as it is now i.e. barren with few shrubs and thorny bushes. 4. Regarding its usage then and now, from the statements of the parties it emerges that the land was never used as a khacharai of any particular village. The fact of using the land by people of Turtuk while going to Tabey Nallah is for the Hon’ble court to decide. No doubt that there are remains of temporary boundaries around 2 caves and some animal dung is also present in those caves and a pathway from the mountain can also be seen which as stated by the villagers, was used by them before roads were built. 5. It is pertinent to mention that Bogdang is at a distance of 6-7 kms from CP Thang, Chulunka is just adjacent to CP Thang separated by river Shayok and Turtuk is at a distance of 12-13 kms from CP Thang.” 11. Thus, the report submitted by the Munsiff Nubra substantiates the earlier report submitted by the Committee appointed by the writ court. As such, the finding returned by the learned Single Judge that CP Thang commonly known as Kangzey Thang is a barren land and not “Kahcharai” cannot be considered as wrong. It needs to be noted that wajib-ul-arz upon which the appellants have laid much stress was prepared during the settlement operations by the Settlement Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 2009, whereas the writ petition was filed by the petitioners-appellants herein in the year 2007. In view of this, the challenge thrown by the appellants to the findings of the learned Single Judge is rejected. 12. The other contention raised by the appellants is that the official respondents are going to alter the boundaries of village Turtuk. In view of this, the challenge thrown by the appellants to the findings of the learned Single Judge is rejected. 12. The other contention raised by the appellants is that the official respondents are going to alter the boundaries of village Turtuk. This contention is also misconceived as no order has been passed by the official respondents for bifurcation of the village and the mere allotment of land for its better utilization to the eligible allottees cannot be considered as truncation of the village. 13. The last contention of the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the SRO 182 dated 06.06.2003. This contention too deserves to be rejected as the bare perusal of the SRO 182(supra) would reveal that the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (2) of section 42 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997 has delegated its executive powers to the Council for allotment, occupation, efficient use and the management of land and we do not find any wrong interpretation of the said SRO by the learned Single Judge. 14. In view of the stand taken by the official respondents before the learned writ court that the allotment has to be made as per the norms and guidelines issued by the Government order No. 175 (supra), the appellants cannot have any reason to assail the decision of the Council. 15. In view of all what has been discussed above, we do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the writ court, as such, the judgment impugned is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed.