WALKERS have welcomed a High Court judge?s decision to uphold an inquiry ruling which saved a public bridleway on Dartmoor. Landowners had appealed against the public inquiry decision to keep open the path, near the village of Throwleigh in the parish of South Tawton. The Ramblers? Association applauded the High Court decision last week, which it said would allow walkers to continue to enjoy a beautiful area of countryside. In a judgment handed down last Friday, Mr Justice Wilkie said the inquiry inspector had been at pains to identify the nature of the evidence available when the path was first registered in the 1960s and that his decision made in July of last year was ?not perverse?. The 200m route runs along the edge of beautiful countryside and is near to open moorland including Throwleigh Common and Kennon Hill. It was originally threatened with closure after landowners applied to have it removed from the legal record of public rights of way ? known as the ?definitive map?. Landowners argued the path had been shown by mistake and successfully appealed to the Secretary of State, who ordered Devon County Council to commence proceedings to remove the path from the definitive map. But the Ramblers? Association, along with other organisations including the Dartmoor Preservation Association, the Open Spaces Society and the Byways and Bridleways Trust, objected. An inquiry was held in June 2005 and a Government Inspector announced the path would stay open. Unhappy with this reversal the landowners took the matter to the High Court. Janet Davis, head of footpaths policy at the Ramblers?s Association, said: ?Once again a judge has made a clear decision that serves to protect the integrity of the definitive map, and which has preserved a path so that the public can continue to enjoy this beautiful area of countryside. ?The courts have made it clear that evidence of some substance needs to be put in the balance if it is to outweigh the initial presumption that a right of way has been correctly shown on the map, and such evidence clearly did not exist in this case.?