JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar, J. - The appellants have called into question judgment and order dated 31.08.2022, passed by learned Writ Court in WP(C) No.1778/2022, whereby their writ petition has been dismissed and they have been given liberty to file a fresh application before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, for preservation of land for grazing purposes. 2. The appellants/writ petitioners had filed a writ petition, challenging order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, UT of Ladakh, whereby, inter alia, a direction was issued for regularization of transfer of State land comprised under Khasra No.1429 in Village Ufti Pipting in favour of various Stateowned organizations/departments for public purposes. It appears that vide the order impugned in the writ petition, respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, while deciding the representation filed by the writ petitioners against the allotment of land made by DC/CEO, LAHDC, Kargil, vide U.O. No.LAHDC-K/CEC/K/57/275, the transfer/allotment of State land falling under Khasra No.1429 of Village Ufti Pipting, Tehsil Zanskar, District Kargil, in favour of private parties/private organizations along with consequent mutations have been set aside but at the same time the transfer of land made out of the aforesaid khasra number in favour of State-owned organizations/departments for public purposes has been directed to be regularized and it has been further directed that the possession of these organization/departments shall not be disturbed so that the public works undertaken by them do not get affected. 3. The case projected by the writ petitioners was that the land, which was subject matter of the allotment, is reserved for grazing of livestock as per Wajib-ul-Arz of the concerned villages. It was submitted that vide Cabinet Decision No.163 dated 03.08.1987, it was decided that the District Development Commissioner would draw up a scheme for allotment of land in question, whereafter land measuring 864 kanals was handed over to the Veterinary Department out of the Command Area of the Haftal Canal. It appears that the Haftal Canal could not be made functional due to non-availability of canal water, as such, the Veterinary Department could not develop the Fodder Farm on the land in question. It was stated by the writ petitioners that the District Administration started allotting the land from the aforesaid Khasra numbers of their own, without following the procedure prescribed under law and when the matter was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Kargil, nothing fruitful could be achieved. It was stated by the writ petitioners that the District Administration started allotting the land from the aforesaid Khasra numbers of their own, without following the procedure prescribed under law and when the matter was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Kargil, nothing fruitful could be achieved. Accordingly, the writ petitioners brought the matter to the notice of respondent No.1 challenging the allotments made by the District Development Commissioner, Kargil. 4. As already noted, respondent No.1 vide the order impugned in the writ petition, rejected the representation of the writ petitioners to the extent of allotment of land made in favour of Government Organizations/Departments, whereas their contention as regards allotment of land in favour of private persons/organizations has been upheld. This order, as already noted, has been upheld by learned Writ Court vide the impugned JUDGMENT. 5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that once the Financial Commissioner found that the allotments that were made by the District Development Commissioner, Kargil, were not in accordance with law, it was not open to the said respondent to uphold these allotments to the extent of Government Organizations/ Departments and at the same time set aside the allotments made in favour of private persons/organizations. It has been further submitted that the land in question is reserved for grazing of livestock and there is enough land available in the area which is more feasible for development of infrastructure for different Government Departments/Organizations. It is being submitted that in the absence of any grazing area, the livestock of the villagers is going to suffer adversely. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents. We have also gone through the grounds of appeal and the record of the case. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No.1 could not have directed the regularization of allotment of land in favour of Government Organizations/Departments, while holding that these allotments are not in accordance with law, appears to be without any merit. This is so for the reason that the land, which was subject matter of the allotment, is a State land that was allotted to Veterinary Department and it is not the land recorded as 'kahcharai'. This is so for the reason that the land, which was subject matter of the allotment, is a State land that was allotted to Veterinary Department and it is not the land recorded as 'kahcharai'. The Veterinary Department, as already noted, could not develop the said land for the purpose of setting up a fodder farm because of nonavailability of water canal but that does not make the land in question a 'kahcharai land'. The fact of the matter remains that the land in question is 'State land' and it is out of this chunk of 'State land' that was allotted earlier in favour of the Veterinary Department. the Deputy Commissioner concerned has allotted a parcel of land in favour of different Government Departments/Organization. To that extent, it cannot be stated that any illegality has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner because it is not a case where the said authority has allotted State land in favour of a private person. However, to the extent the Deputy Commissioner concerned allotted the State land in favour of private persons, respondent No.1 has rightly set aside those mutations, as the allotment of State land in favour of private persons has to be made in accordance with law, by following the provisions contained in the Land Grants Act, which in the instant case was not done. 8. So far as the contention of the appellants that there is enough land available for establishing infrastructure for different Government Departments in the area, is concerned, the same is also without any merit for the reason that the decision regarding feasibility of site for establishing infrastructure is within the domain of the agencies of the Government and neither this Court nor the appellants can take upon themselves this task and decide the feasibility of the site for the said purpose. 9. Lastly, it has been contended by the appellants that in the absence of adequate grazing land, there will be adverse impact on the livestock of the villagers by the action of respondent No.1, whereby allotment of land in favour of Government Departments/Organizations has been directed to be regularized. In this regard, the learned Writ Court has already safeguarded the interests of the appellants by giving them liberty to file a fresh application before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, supported with relevant revenue record for claiming preservation of land for grazing purposes. In this regard, the learned Writ Court has already safeguarded the interests of the appellants by giving them liberty to file a fresh application before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, supported with relevant revenue record for claiming preservation of land for grazing purposes. Therefore, no fresh directions are required to be passed in the instant appeal on this aspect of the matter. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.