JUDGMENT : Vinod Chatterji Koul, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Enquiry Report No. DPO/BHAD/3289-92 dated 23.09.2021 submitted by respondent No. 4 as well as the Order No.CFC/Grazing/2021-22/6542 dated 25.09.2021 passed by respondent No. 2. 2. The aforesaid Enquiry report as well as Order dated 25.09.2021 is being challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the ancestors of the petitioners during their lifetime used to graze their Sheep, goats and Cattles in Runtlu Dhar, Jaie Tehsil Bhaderwah Forest Division Bhaderwah as Traditional Forest Dwellers and for grazing their Sheep and Goats the necessary permission in the shape of Mattoo/permit is being issued in favour of nomadic grazers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proforma respondent-Paras Ram and brother of the petitioners were shepherd by profession and the herds of the petitioners under their supervision were being grazed by proforma respondent and being Asamie/agent under their authority the proforma respondent has got issued mattoos/permits in his favour from 1969 onwards. 4. It is stated that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have got conducted an enquiry from Range Officer Doda and acting upon the enquiry report, the respondent No. 3 and 4 decided that the grazing rights of petitioners and respondent No. 4 is illegal under law. It is being further stated that due to militancy the proforma respondent and brother of the petitioners had abandoned to graze the said Dhar for grazing of herds and had allowed respondent No. 5 to graze the sheep and goats there under their authority. The respondent No. 5 got issued some mattoo in his favour by misleading the Forest Department that he is the brother of proforma respondent and is grazing sheep as a family business. 5. It is further stated that respondent No. 5 in the month of June, 2020 threatened the petitioners of dire consequences in case they interfere in the said Forest area at Runtloo Jaie. The petitioner No. 1 through the son of proforma respondent has moved an application to respondent No. 4 for restraining respondent No. 5 from interfering into the said Dhar. Respondent No.4 acting upon an application directed Iftikhar Ahmed, Incharge Range Officer, FCR, Bhaderwah to conduct an enquiry and vide No.55/FCR/Bhaderwah dated 21.09.2020 the Incharge Range Officer submitted a report of enquiry to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 acting upon an application directed Iftikhar Ahmed, Incharge Range Officer, FCR, Bhaderwah to conduct an enquiry and vide No.55/FCR/Bhaderwah dated 21.09.2020 the Incharge Range Officer submitted a report of enquiry to respondent No.4. The respondent No. 4 after going through the enquiry report and acting thereupon directed the Range Officer Neeru to issue Mattoo/permit to petitioner only and cancel Mattoo/permit of respondent No. 5 and proforma respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners states that petitioner under usual seasonal move, in the month of March,2021, reached at the said Dhar Runtlu Jaie alongwith sheep and goats and while grazing their sheep and goats in the said Dhar, the respondent No.5 with some goons came to the spot and threatened the petitioner No. 1 and his shepherd of dire consequences, in ease the said area is not vacated. The petitioner No. 1 filed a civil suitfor declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondent No. 5 and his sons before the Court of Learned Sub-Judge, Bhaderwah which is still pending. Prior to this the respondent No. 5 has also filed a suit against the son of proforma respondent in which exparte interim injunction granted to respondent No.5 has been vacated by the trial Court after hearing both the parties in which the defendant (Sandeep Kumar) in clear words has stated that the said Dhar belongs to the petitioners and the defendant has no concern with the same. The respondent No.5assailed the order dated 04.05.2021 before the Court of District Judge, Bhaderwah, by filing a Civil Misc. Appeal which was also dismissed by the said Court vide order dated 17/07/2021. 7. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have conducted an enquiry from one Range Officer Doda and the said officer without visiting the spot has concluded the enquiry in Forest Quarter Jaie and has submitted the report to respondent No.4 and the said respondent vide order dated 23.09.2021 has communicated the same to respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 acting upon the enquiry report of respondent No.4 has passed the order dated 25.09.2021. 8. The respondent No.3 acting upon the enquiry report of respondent No.4 has passed the order dated 25.09.2021. 8. The enquiry report dated 23.09.2021 as well as order dated 25.09.2023 passed by respondent no.3 is being challenged by the petitioners, precisely on the following grounds:- (a) that the impugned enquiry and the order passed thereupon are illegal because the respondent No. 3 and 4 has not complied with the provisions of Forest Right Act, 2006 which came to be implemented by the Govt. of J&K in the year 2020 and also the Committees have also been framed for redressal of disputes inter-se the parties/claimants. The respondent No. 4 after receipt of application from respondent No. 5 was under legal obligation to forward the same to Gram Sabha/Sub-Divisional Level Committee framed by the Govt. or may have directed/advised the respondent No. 5 to approach gram Sabha/Sub-Divisional Level Committee for his grievance; (b) that the respondent No. 4 has directed/prayed for the second enquiry and the same has been conducted at the back of petitioners without recording their statements; (c) that the respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 has conducted the second enquiry and passed the order impugned there upon knowing it very well that the respondent No. 4 himself while acting upon the first enquiry dated 21.09.2020 has cancelled the Mattoos/permit of the respondent No. 5 and proforma respondent. The Mattoo/permit of the petitioner is still subsisting and is not cancelled, hence the order impugned and the enquiry are illegal; (d) that the second enquiry has been directed and conducted by the same rank official (Incharge Range Officer) and the respondent No. 4 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Bhaderwah cannot direct another enquiry into the same subject matter once the earlier one has been accepted and acted upon by declaring the petitioner as legal occupant and respondent No. 5 and proforma respondent as illegal one; (e) that the civil suit filed by the petitioner No. 1 is still sub-judice before the Sub-Judge, Bhaderwah. The suit filed by the petitioner No. 1 will become in-fructuous in case the enquiry and the order dated 25/09/2021 are allowed to continue and not set aside; 9. Per contra , respondents in their objections filed in opposition to the writ petition, have resisted and controverted the contentions and grounds raised and urged by the petitioners in the writ petition. Per contra , respondents in their objections filed in opposition to the writ petition, have resisted and controverted the contentions and grounds raised and urged by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is stated that the grazing right over Runtlu Dhar at Jai is concerned, respondent 5-Ganpat Raj has claimed the grazing right over said Dhar and in the instant case proforma respondent is not a claimant for grazing right. However, Forest Department issues the Grazing Motto (Form-3) to the person who grazes his/her herds/Cattles in a particular area. The further stand taken in the objections is that there isno question of misleading of the Forest Department by respondent no.5, as the rights are allotted after proper verification and inspection on spot. It is stated that the claim of the petitioners is not based on facts with respect to grazing of their sheep and goats through their appointed Shepherd at Runtlu Dhar as no grazing motto has been issued by the Forest Department in their favour. 10. The further stand taken by the respondents in their objections is that Iftkhar Ahmed, I/C Range officer, Forest Control Room, Bhaderwah, while conducting inquiry has not gone through the record and has not recorded the statement of every person. Instead of getting the matter thoroughly probed, he directed Neeru Range Officer to issue grazing motto in favour of Kuldeep Kumar and cancel motto as illegal one.It is stated that Range Forest Officer, Forest Range Chiralla, Head Quarter, Thathri vide his letter dated 7.5.2022 has given in writing to DFO Bhaderwah that Kewal Krishan Block officer Jai 2 nd is charge sheeted vide this office dated 26.04.2022 regarding issuance of grazing motto in favour of Kuldeep Kumar and Kewal Krishan has replied that he was not aware about Court case and claimant (Kuldeep Kumar) produced motto of previous year and he has issued grazing motto in bulk due to which grazing motto was issued by mistake. He has also requested that Grazing motto of Kuldeep Kumar bearing no.0043433 book No. 30 may kindly be cancelled. Aggrieved by the direction of Divisional Forest Officer, Bhadarwah, respondent No.5-Ganpat Raj appeared before the said Divisional Officer and narrated the matter and showed original copies of grazing motto since 1969. The Conservator of Forest, Chenab circle, Doda deputed a team headed by I/c Range Officer, Soil Range Officer, Doda, who submitted an enquiry report dated 6.09.2021. Aggrieved by the direction of Divisional Forest Officer, Bhadarwah, respondent No.5-Ganpat Raj appeared before the said Divisional Officer and narrated the matter and showed original copies of grazing motto since 1969. The Conservator of Forest, Chenab circle, Doda deputed a team headed by I/c Range Officer, Soil Range Officer, Doda, who submitted an enquiry report dated 6.09.2021. The enquiry report was forwarded to DFO, Forest Division Bhaderwah and after perusing the report and document placed on record following specific recommendation was made by the officer: “Except 2 persons namely Kamal Din Gujjar and Ganpat Raj nobody is having grazing rights over the Rantlu Dhar as per records of the divis ion.” 11. Accordingly, the Conservator of Forests vide his letter dated 25.09.2021 directed that in order to avoid dispute over the said Dhar for grazing purpose, not to allow any person except the one named above be allowed for grazing purpose in the said Dhar. In consequence of the aforesaid directions, Grazing Motto issued in favour of petitioner- Kuldeep Kumar was cancelled vide order dated 28.09.2021. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 13. Admittedly, the Matto/permit based on which the petitioners were claiming their right to graze sheep and goats stands cancelled. The order of cancellation has been issued after following due procedure and inquiry initiated by the Conservator of Forests as well as grazing mottos produced by the respondent no.5 since 1969. The previous permit issued by the Neeru Range Officer to grant grazing Motto in favour of petitioner- Kuldeep Kumar was a work of haste and not supported by proper documents/permit/Mattoo supporting his claim. 14. Since no document/permit/Mattoo has been placed on record to support the claim of the petitioners for grazing their sheep and goats, their rights over the said Runtlu Dhar, Jaie Tehsil Bhaderwah Forest Division Bhaderwah, cannot be enforced. 15. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is found to be without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed