Barin Ghosh, CJ. 1. In this appeal, we are concerned with a land measuring 2 Kanals 1 marla under Khasra no.99 situate at Golod, Tehsil Mendhar. On September 26, 1987, by an order, on the recommendation of the Assistant Custodian (Tehsildar) Mendhar, the said land was leased out by the Custodian, Evacuee Property, Jammu, in favour of the appellant at a premium of Rs.100 and ground rent of Rs.26 per month for a period of one year in the first instance. No formal lease was executed. By an order dated February 22, 1989, lease of the said land in favour of the appellant was extended for a further period of 20 years by the Custodian General, when the premium was increased to Rs.5,000 per Kanal and the ground rent was increased to Rs.50 per kanal per annum, and certain conditions were imposed. Even thereafter, no lease was executed. Petitioner-respondent approached the Special Tribunal and expressed his grievance in regard to the said grant. Before the Special Tribunal, it was contended by the petitioner-respondent that he has some interest in the land in question and that before grant or extension of the lease, he was entitled to be heard. The Special Tribunal accepted such contention of petitioner-respondent and set aside the order of extension, and directed the Custodian General, Jammu to pass fresh orders after hearing the parties. As a result extension of the lease came to an end. The original lease was then not subsisting. 2. Custodian General, Jammu heard the parties and recorded that admittedly petitioner-respondent is a displaced person and he had been allotted the said land along with other land under Khasra nos.99 and 96. The Custodian General, at the same time, held that petitioner-respondent, as per records, never took possession of the said land. He thereupon noted paragraph 5 of Cabinet Order no.578-C and held that, in terms of the provisions contained therein, petitioner-respondent has forfeited his right to occupy the said land. 3. In order to arrive at the said conclusion, apart from noting paragraph 5 of the said Cabinet Order, the Custodian General, Jammu, took into consideration mutation order no.151 dated July 4, 1981 issued under section 3A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 and the report of the Custodian, Jammu, dated February 9, 1989, which was allegedly called for by the then Custodian General before extending the lease. After looking at the mutation order referred to above, the Custodian General held that, as recorded therein, petitioner-respondent himself admitted before the Tehsildar, Mendhar that he had never taken or remained in possession of the land in question. By looking at the alleged report of Custodian, Jammu, referred to above, the Custodian General, Jammu, observed that in the said report it has been reported that petitioner-respondent is holding surplus land than permissible under the said Cabinet Order and that petitioner-respondent was never in possession of the land in question since 1962. On the basis of the findings derived from the said mutation order and the said report, and applying those findings to the provisions contained in the said Cabinet Order, the Custodian General, Jammu held in his order dated February 18, 2002 that petitioner-respondent had no subsisting right in the land in question as on the date of grant of the initial lease as well as extension thereof and, accordingly, non-suited the petitioner-respondent. At the same time, the Custodian General, Jammu, in his said order dated February 18, 2002 held that grant of lease of the said land in favour of appellant and extension thereof were inappropriate and contrary to rules but, despite that, did not interfere with such grant and extension and, on the contrary, by the said order altered the terms of the extended lease. 4. Petitioner-respondent then approached this Court by filing a writ petition. By that, he challenged the order of the Custodian General, Jammu dated February 18, 2002. There cannot be any dispute that the writ petition was not appropriately drafted, but the fact remains that a reading of the writ petition would make it amply clear that petitioner-respondent was seeking quashing of the order passed by the Custodian General, Jammu dated February 18, 2002 and, at the same time, was advancing his grievance that the said land, which stood allotted to him, has been leased out to the appellant in violation of law. 5. By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been allowed. Although the Custodian General by his order dated February 18, 2002 did not in so many words cancel the allotment in favour of petitioner-respondent, but insinuated, for the reasons indicated above, that the allotment of the said land in favour of petitioner-respondent stood forfeited. 5. By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been allowed. Although the Custodian General by his order dated February 18, 2002 did not in so many words cancel the allotment in favour of petitioner-respondent, but insinuated, for the reasons indicated above, that the allotment of the said land in favour of petitioner-respondent stood forfeited. By the judgment and order under appeal, the learned Judge set aside the order of cancellation of allotment in favour of petitioner-respondent, i.e., insinuations that the allotment of the said land in favour of petitioner-respondent stands forfeited and, at the same time, the learned Judge quashed the orders granting lease and extension thereof in favour of the appellant, and directed eviction of appellant from the land in question with a further direction to hand over possession thereof to petitioner-respondent. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 6. The principal contention of the appellant before us is that when the order was passed on September 26, 1987 to lease the land in question in favour of appellant, petitioner-respondent had no interest therein inasmuch as allotment of the land in question in favour of petitioner-respondent stood forfeited. The other contention of the appellant is that there has been unexplained delay, latches and negligence on the part of petitioner-respondent in taking steps as he purported to take in the year 1999 by approaching the Special Tribunal seeking to challenge the order dated February 22, 1989, by which the lease was extended. 7. It is the contention of petitioner-respondent that there is no forfeiture of the allotment made in his favour and the records, upon which reliance has been placed, would amply demonstrate that the facts justifying forfeiture were absent in the instant case. It was also contended by petitioner-respondent that there was no delay or latches on his part in taking remedial measures for which he had approached the Special Tribunal. 8. The contention of the State is that, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, what best could be done by the Custodian General, Jammu, was done by him while passing the order dated February 18, 2002. 9. 8. The contention of the State is that, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, what best could be done by the Custodian General, Jammu, was done by him while passing the order dated February 18, 2002. 9. In course of submissions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that on the strength of the lease, appellant has constructed shops as well as residential infrastructure on the land in question and only after steps to do so had been taken, petitioner-respondent took steps as were taken by him. The fact remains that subsequent to 1999, i.e., after petitioner-respondent approached the Special Tribunal, the extension of the lease was cancelled by the Special Tribunal. The appellant did not express any grievance in regard thereto. By the order impugned in the writ petition dated February 18, 2002, the Custodian General directed grant of fresh lease on new terms and conditions and, soon thereafter, in 2002, this writ petition was filed when orders were passed to maintain status-quo and there is nothing on record as to when permission to construct was obtained by the appellant and when, in fact, construction commenced. Therefore, the ground taken by the appellant that writ petitioner respondent was guilty of latches or negligence is of no effect. 10. The question that requires answer in this appeal is, therefore, whether the Custodian or the Custodian General, as on September 26, 1987 or on February 22, 1989 was entitled to deal with the land in question as was dealt with by them by granting a lease for one year and, thereupon, extending the same for 20 years. 11. There is no dispute that the land in question is an evacuee property and, accordingly, the same vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Properties. Such lands have been dealt with by the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, Svt. 2006. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act provides, among others, that an evacuee property means any property in which an evacuee has any right or interest and includes any property which has been obtained by any person from an evacuee after 14th day of August, 1947 by any mode of transfer unless such transfer has been confirmed by the Custodian. The said clause of the said section excludes certain properties with which we are not concerned. The said clause of the said section excludes certain properties with which we are not concerned. Section 3 of the said Act provides that provisions of the Act and the Rules and Orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument taking effect by virtue of any such law. Section 5 of the said Act, subject to the provisions thereof, vests all evacuee property in the Custodian. 12. Clause (a) of section 2 of the said Act defines allotment. It says that allotment means grant by the Government or the Custodian or any other person duly authorized by the Custodian in this behalf of a temporary right of use and occupation of any immovable property of an evacuee to any person otherwise than by way of lease. Section 39 of the Act authorizes Government to make rules to provide, amongst others, the manner and conditions subject to which the Custodian may allot any immovable property vested in him as well as the circumstances in which leases and allotments may be cancelled or terminated or the terms of any lease or agreement varied, as well as any other matter which has to be and may be prescribed under the Act. 13. In terms of the power so conferred by section 39 of the Act, the J&K State Evacuees (Administration of Property) Rules Svt. 2008 were made by the Government. The same originally did not, however, deal with either allotment or lease of evacuee properties, unless so done by rule 13 thereof, which was not produced for our consideration. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred by section 39 of the Act to provide the manner in which and the conditions, subject to which the Custodian may allot any immovable property vested in him and the circumstances in which leases and allotments may be cancelled or terminated or the terms of any lease or agreement varied, Allotment of land to Displaced persons Rules, 1954, more particularly known as Cabinet Order no.578-C of 1954 dated May 7, 1954, was made by the Government. The said Rules of 1954, however, did not address either grant or cancellation or variation of the terms or conditions of lease. It dealt with allotment of land and cancellation of such allotment. The said Rules of 1954, however, did not address either grant or cancellation or variation of the terms or conditions of lease. It dealt with allotment of land and cancellation of such allotment. Allotment of land has been dealt with in rule 5; whereas cancellation of allotment of land has been dealt with in rule 12 of the said rules. Rule 12 provides that Tehsildar or the Provincial Officer shall have power to cancel allotment when the allotment is in excess of the permissible limit and the allottee shall forfeit his right to claim allotment of land in his favour in future. Rule 5 of the said Rules is as follows: "Liability to cultivate allotted land personally and consequences of failure to do so. (1) A displaced family, who may hereafter be, and such family as has already been, allotted land, shall be bound to bring such land under personal cultivation within six months of the date of delivery of possession on allotment or the date of this order, as the case may be, failing which such family shall forfeit its right to occupy such land. (2) The land, of which the right to occupy is forfeited under clause (1) may be re-allotted to any other displaced family, which shall not have been settled on land by that time and failing it shall continue with the person, who has been in actual cultivating occupation thereof; provided such person is a landless tiller, and otherwise will be let out to a landless tiller, to the extent of the limit permissible. Explanation.- `Personal cultivation includes cultivation by any member of the family." 14. Rule 5 of the said rules, quoted above, would show allotment of land can be made for cultivation thereof. Forfeiture of the allotment is a certainty if the land is not cultivated within six months from the delivery of possession of the land on allotment or the date of coming into force of the said rules. If an allotment is made, the same denotes grant of right in favour of the allottee to occupy the land, but for cultivation only. If the right is forfeited, the allotted land becomes available for re-allotment, but again, for cultivation. If an allotment is made, the same denotes grant of right in favour of the allottee to occupy the land, but for cultivation only. If the right is forfeited, the allotted land becomes available for re-allotment, but again, for cultivation. In the event re-allotment of the land is not made, the land will continue with the person who has been in actual cultivating possession thereof, provided such person is a landless tiller and, if the same is not in possession of any person who has been in actual cultivating possession thereof, the land would be let out to a landless tiller to the extent of the limit permissible. In other words, it suggests that once a land is allotted, such land would remain either with the original allottee, if the allotment is not forfeited, or with the re-allottee, or with the person in cultivating occupation, or with a landless tiller, but for the purpose of cultivation. 15. In this connection, one is required to take note of rule 6 of the said rules, which grants exemption from personal cultivation in certain cases. While granting exemption, it has been expressly stated that the allotted land in no case shall be left fallow, i.e., uncultivated. It provides further that, if the land is left fallow or uncultivated without sufficient cause for more than six months from the date the said rules came into force or the date of delivery of possession, it shall be lawful for the revenue authority to let out the same to such landless tiller as he deems fit and on payment of such rent as he may consider fair. This is also an indication that an allotted land was intended to remain in cultivation for all times to come. 16. Looking at rules 5, 6 and 12 of the said rules, it appears that a land allotted should not only remain under cultivation, but if an allottee or a re-allottee fails to bring the same under personal cultivation within six months from the date of delivery of possession of the land on allotment or re-allotment, his right to occupy the land on the basis of allotment or re-allotment will stand forfeited. Similarly, if an exempted allottee or re-allottee fails to arrange cultivation of the land for more than six months from the date of delivery of possession of the land on allotment or re-allotment, his right to occupy the land on the basis of the allotment or re-allotment will stand forfeited. However, in the event allotment of land is more than the limit prescribed, the allotment is liable to be cancelled beyond the prescribed limit. As aforesaid, the said rules did not make any provision for leasing out any land. 17. On July 31, 1961, rule 13 of the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Rules, referred to above, was substituted. The substituted rule 13 of the said rules authorized the Custodian to allot or lease any evacuee property in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Government. The said rule, however, imposed a restriction on the period of lease or allotment. It directed, except with the permission of the Custodian General, such lease or allotment shall not exceed one year, in the case of residential property and two or three years in the case of commercial and industrial undertakings, respectively. The said rule, therefore, authorized grant of lease or allotment of residential, commercial or industrial properties. Allotment, by reason of definition thereof given in the Act, would be for temporary use. Therefore, with effect from July 31, 1961, in terms of the said rules, the Custodian became entitled to allot or lease out residential, commercial or industrial properties. The power, however, stood restricted to one year, two years and three years, respectively. With the permission of the Custodian General, such power became exercisable beyond the periods of one year, two yeas and three years, as the case may be. 18. On April 5, 1985, rules 13-A, 13-B, 13-C and 13-D were inserted in the Evacuees (Administration of Property) Rules. While rule 13-A authorized revision of rent of all evacuee buildings; rule 13-B authorized revision of rent of houses or shops used for commercial purposes. The said rules, therefore, authorized revision of rent of buildings, shops and commercial properties used as such. Rule 13-C directed fixation of premium and rent in respect of vacant land to be leased out. While rule 13-A authorized revision of rent of all evacuee buildings; rule 13-B authorized revision of rent of houses or shops used for commercial purposes. The said rules, therefore, authorized revision of rent of buildings, shops and commercial properties used as such. Rule 13-C directed fixation of premium and rent in respect of vacant land to be leased out. It said that, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 13, the Custodian shall put to an open auction lease of any evacuee land for a period not exceeding 40 years for determination of premium to be charged from the allottee to hold such land as leased out or may charge the premium and ground rent annually after taking into consideration the market value of such land of the locality in which it is situate. It further provided that different rates of premium and ground rent shall be fixed for the lands put to use for residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be. Therefore, an embargo was put on the Custodian, even with permission of the Custodian General, to grant lease of a vacant land for a period not exceeding 40 years with a further obligation to determine the premium to be charged for grant of such lease at such rate as may be available on open auction or at such rate which may be determined after taking into consideration the market value of such land of the locality in which it is situate and such market value should be determined on the basis of the proposed use of the land, i.e., whether for residential or for commercial or for industrial purpose. 19. From what has been stated above, it would be evidenced that, though allotment may be made of residential or commercial or industrial properties and, at the same time, lease thereof may be granted, but while provisions have been made as regards lease of vacant land to be used for residential or commercial or industrial purpose, no provision has been made for allotment thereof. The rules, as above, authorize allotment of land for cultivation. Since, after April 5, 1985, lease of vacant land for residential, commercial or industrial purpose is also permissible. The same is required to be made only by fixing premium by taking recourse to open auction or upon taking into consideration the market value thereof. The rules, as above, authorize allotment of land for cultivation. Since, after April 5, 1985, lease of vacant land for residential, commercial or industrial purpose is also permissible. The same is required to be made only by fixing premium by taking recourse to open auction or upon taking into consideration the market value thereof. No provision has been made for grant of lease for residential, commercial or industrial purposes of a plot of land, which had been allotted for the purpose of cultivation. In other words, cultivable lands allotted as such should remain cultivable lands and lands which have not been allotted for cultivation and, accordingly, may be used for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, may be leased out on such premium as may be determined by taking recourse to two options, namely, open auction or by determining market value thereof. The rules framed under the Act do not authorize use of a land, allotted for cultivation, for residential, commercial or industrial purpose. At the same time, the rules do not suggest forfeiture of land allotted for cultivation beyond the periods of six months, as referred to in rules 5 and 6 of the Allotment of Land to Displaced Persons Rules. At this juncture, it must also be noted that allotment of land for cultivation is available only to displaced persons or families, i.e., those who held land in Pakistan held territory of the State and whose source of livelihood was the income from such land, and to no one else. In case of forfeiture of allotment of such land, a tiller in occupation or a landless tiller, who may not be a displaced person, may be authorized to remain in occupation of the forfeited allotted or re-allotted land. At the same time, lease may be granted to any one. 20. Nothing is mentioned in the said rules as to what will happen if the allotment of land for cultivation to displaced persons is not forfeited or cancelled for failure on their behalf to do what has been provided in rules 5 and 6 of Allotment of Land to Displaced Persons Rules, but the land becomes fallow later on. It is well settled in law that when a field is not covered by rules, the same may be supplied by administrative instructions. It is well settled in law that when a field is not covered by rules, the same may be supplied by administrative instructions. By the administrative instructions contained in Government Order dated September 9, 1971, it appears, the lacunae in the rules, as regards cancellation of allotment or re-allotment of land to displaced persons for cultivation for their failure to cultivate the same after expiry of the period mentioned in rules 5 and 6 of Allotment of Land to Displaced Persons Rules, was supplied when it was provided that it would be permissible to cancel allotment of land or re-allotment of land to those displaced persons / locals, i.e., the tillers in occupation or landless tillers, who have not so far cultivated land themselves or got it cultivated by tenants and whose land is lying fallow for the last two successive harvests. While doing so, the said order directed that before allotment / re-allotment is cancelled, a notice should be served upon the allottee or the re-allottee or the person in possession, to show cause within 30 days of the issue of the notice as to why the allotment or re-allotment of the land should not be cancelled for non-cultivation. It further provided that in case no satisfactory explanation is tendered, or in case the allottee or the person in occupation fails to tender any explanation, the allotment may be cancelled and he be ejected. As would be evidenced from the said Government Order, the object and purpose of cancellation of allotment or re-allotment as provided therein, was aimed at grant of allotment / re-allotment to a larger segment of displaced persons. It directed the manner of assessing excess land held by a displaced person and the mode and method of cancellation thereof. It directed for that purpose to take into account records contained in the revenue records. 21. Reading the Act, the rules and the Government Order referred to above, allotment or re-allotment can be made of land for purposes of cultivation; whereas land can be leased out for residential, commercial as well as industrial purpose. The land allotted or re-allotted for the purpose of cultivation would remain as such. In the event land allotted for cultivation is not cultivated by the allottee or the re-allottee within six months from the date of obtaining possession by him on such allotment, his right to occupy the land will stand forfeited. The land allotted or re-allotted for the purpose of cultivation would remain as such. In the event land allotted for cultivation is not cultivated by the allottee or the re-allottee within six months from the date of obtaining possession by him on such allotment, his right to occupy the land will stand forfeited. In other words, the allotment / re-allotment will stand cancelled. In such event, the tiller in possession shall continue to remain in possession of the land in question; if not, the same will be given to a landless tiller. If the allottee or re-allottee having had cultivated the land in question for a period of six months from the date of obtaining possession on allotment or re-allotment and, thereupon, fails, or the tiller in possession or the landless tiller keeps the land fallow for two consecutive harvests, he faces the threat of ejectment, unless satisfactory reason is furnished by him therefor in a proceeding to be initiated upon issuing a notice to him. Any other land, not allotted for cultivation, may be leased for residential, commercial or industrial purpose and such lease, since after April 5, 1985, is required to be settled upon fixation of premium to be ascertained by putting the land in question to open auction or by taking into consideration the market value thereof. 22. In the instant case, the revenue records do suggest that the land in question was allotted in favour of petitioner-respondent. Even the alleged report of the Custodian, Jammu, dated February 9, 1989, considered by the Custodian General in the order impugned in the writ petition, says that petitioner-respondent was in possession of the land in question before 1962 as its allottee. The revenue records upon which reliance has been placed, suggests that petitioner-respondent was the allottee of the land in question. They do not suggest that there was forfeiture. The mutation order no.151, also taken into consideration by the Custodian General in his order impugned in the writ petition, clearly suggests that petitioner-respondent was allottee of the land in question. We have read the said mutation order no.151 dated July 4, 1981 with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. They do not suggest that there was forfeiture. The mutation order no.151, also taken into consideration by the Custodian General in his order impugned in the writ petition, clearly suggests that petitioner-respondent was allottee of the land in question. We have read the said mutation order no.151 dated July 4, 1981 with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. We found by reading the same that nowhere therein it had been recorded that petitioner-respondent stated before the authority passing the said order that he was never in possession or occupation of the said land; instead he stated that he is not now in possession of the said land. The revenue records, at the same time, suggest that though the said land was allotted in favour of petitioner-respondent but the same was in possession of the revenue department. The rules referred to above do not suggest any mechanism by which at any point of time the revenue department could have come in possession of the said land. At the same time, though the land in question vests in the Custodian, but there is nothing which would suggest that the Custodian could take possession of the land allotted in favour of petitioner-respondent before cancellation of his allotment. No such step had been taken is not in dispute. There was, thus, no forfeiture of the allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-respondent, nor there was cancellation thereof. 23. It may be possible that petitioner-respondent, or his family, is holding excess land but again cancellation of allotment of excess land is required to be made and, for that matter, a quasi judicial proceeding, as mentioned in the said Government Order of 1971, is required to be taken. Admittedly, no such proceeding has been taken. 24. While the allotment of the said land in favour of petitioner-respondent stands admitted in the revenue records, the revenue records do not suggest that the same is in occupation of a tiller. On the other hand, it suggests that the same was in possession of the revenue department since July 4, 1981. Admittedly, no such proceeding has been taken. 24. While the allotment of the said land in favour of petitioner-respondent stands admitted in the revenue records, the revenue records do not suggest that the same is in occupation of a tiller. On the other hand, it suggests that the same was in possession of the revenue department since July 4, 1981. In terms of the law governing the subject matter discussed above, until such time the allotment in favour of petitioner-respondent is cancelled, he is entitled to be in possession thereof and, if he is not in possession thereof and, accordingly, has not taken any steps to have the same cultivated for two harvests, petitioner-respondent has exposed himself to the threat of cancellation of the allotment followed by ejectment. 25. In order to understand the aspect discussed above, one is also required to take notice of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. 26. Before we consider the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, it would be appropriate to take note of two other Acts also: one of them is the Jammu and Kashmir Displaced Persons (Permanent Settlement) Act, 1971. The said Act grants authority to the Government to transfer any land owned by the State, any land which has escheated to the State and any evacuee land acquired under section 4 of the Act for permanent settlement of any displaced person. The land dealt with in the said Act means land which is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture. Section 4 of the Act authorizes the Government to acquire any evacuee land allotted to displaced persons by publishing a notification to the effect that the government has decided to acquire such evacuee land. The purpose of such acquisition, as aforesaid, is to transfer land to any displaced person for his permanent settlement. The evacuee land carries the same meaning as given in the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act, 2006. The said Act provides for payment of compensation after acquisition of evacuee land and other provisions in connection therewith. The purpose of such acquisition, as aforesaid, is to transfer land to any displaced person for his permanent settlement. The evacuee land carries the same meaning as given in the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act, 2006. The said Act provides for payment of compensation after acquisition of evacuee land and other provisions in connection therewith. Section 6 of the said Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to, amongst others, any evacuee land other than such land which has been allotted under Allotment of Land to Displaced Persons Rules 1974, i. e., Cabinet Order no.578-C of 1954. Thus, the said Act applied to the land in question since the same was allotted under the said Rules / Cabinet Order. It does not appear that the land in question was acquired in terms of the said Act. 27. The other Act, which is required to be taken note of, is the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972. Section 17 of the Act provides, amongst others, that any land to which the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Displaced Persons (Permanent Settlement) Act, 1971 apply, i.e., those settled under the said rules / Cabinet Order, shall, with effect from the date appointed under section 3 of the said Act, be deemed to have been acquired by the Government within the meaning of section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Displaced Persons (Permanent Settlement) Act, 1971 and the same shall vest in the displaced person who held it in personal cultivation on the first day of September, 1971, subject to the provisions of section 18 of the said Act. It further provides that where a displaced person held such land in more than one village, he shall be deemed to have held it in personal cultivation if he was, on the first day of September, 1971, in personal cultivation of the portion of land in at least one village. It further added that where any displaced person held any such land not in his personal cultivation on the first day of September, 1971, the land shall vest in the State. It further added that where any displaced person held any such land not in his personal cultivation on the first day of September, 1971, the land shall vest in the State. However, if the monthly income of the displaced person does not exceed Rs.500 per month, he would be entitled to resumption and, for that matter, within the time to be prescribed, if he does not apply, the prescribed authority shall itself determine whether the land is risumeable by such person in the prescribed manner as if the application of such person was duly made before it. 28. It is not known whether the petitioner-respondent and his family members were allotted land in more than one village and whether they held land in one of such villages in their personal cultivation as on September 1, 1971 or whether their income did not exceed Rs.500 and, accordingly, they became entitled to resumption. On the other hand, the revenue records show that even until July 4, 1981, writ petitioner-respondent and his family were recognized as allottees of the land in question. The said Act provides that if the vested land is not cultivated within a period of six months from the appointed date or if the resumed land is not cultivated within a period of 8 months from the date of entering into possession, the right in the land shall extinguish but, for that matter, an enquiry in the prescribed manner is required to be made followed by a declaration. It does not appear any such step had been taken. The only logical reason, therefore, can be that the petitioner-respondent was holding land in more than one village and held land in personal capacity in at least one village. 29. On August 21, 1976 the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 came into force. By section 43 thereof, with effect from August 21, 1976, the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972 was repealed. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, evacuee land means land as defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act and land means which was occupied or was let for agricultural purposes or for the purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture in Kharief 1971. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, evacuee land means land as defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act and land means which was occupied or was let for agricultural purposes or for the purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture in Kharief 1971. Section 3 thereof provides that the provisions of the said Act, except those specified in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 and Sections 5, 7, 13 and 14 and sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Act shall not apply to evacuees land. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act provides that the land mentioned in Schedule-II to the Act (which deals with State land), allotted to a displaced person, shall not vest; provided that such land and evacuees land, if any, allotted to the same displaced person, is situate in more than one village and such displaced person cultivated personally the land in at least one village in Kharif 1971. As against that, Section 5 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any land held by an individual in personal cultivation, whether as owner or tenant or otherwise, was in excess of the ceiling area on the first day of September, 1971, the rights, title and interest of such individual in the excess land shall be deemed to have vested in the State free from any encumbrances on the 1st day of May, 1973. Similarly, where aggregate of such land is held by the members of a family, the excess land shall also vest. Section 7 of the Act deals with resumption for bona fide personal cultivation by ex-landlord. Section 13 imposes restriction on utilization of land and Section 14 deals with optimum retainable area of land. Sub-section (3) of Section 26 of the Act deals with unauthorized occupation of State land reserved for grazing purpose. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of the said Act only in case of the petitioner holding excess land, the same may vest in the State or in the revenue department. Nothing has come on record of this case that the land in question, at any point of time, by reason of the provisions of the said Act, vested in the State. 30. Nothing has come on record of this case that the land in question, at any point of time, by reason of the provisions of the said Act, vested in the State. 30. Section 3-A of the said Act, inserted in 1978, converted displaced persons cultivating evacuee land personally into occupancy tenants with right to transfer their right of occupancy tenancy by sale, mortgage or gift, subject to the provisions of the Alienation of Land Act, and to which the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act shall have no application. 31. The order no.151 dated July 4, 1981 deals with the claim of the petitioner-respondent to record him and his family as the occupancy tenant of the land in question. The prayer made to that effect was refused since petitioner-respondent accepted before the authority concerned that he was not cultivating the land in question. Despite that, no record of the revenue department has been placed before us suggesting vesting of the land in question in the State. On the other hand, the revenue records went on suggesting that the land stands allotted in favour of the petitioner-respondent and his family. From the action of the Custodian General, complained of in the writ petition, it is clear that the land in question did not vest in the State in terms of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, for, if the same had vested, the Custodian of Evacuees Properties or the Custodian General could not deal with the land in question in the manner they purported to do firstly in the year 1987, then in the year 1989 and lastly on February 18, 2002; and, instead, the same would have been dealt with by the Government, may be through its revenue department. 32. In the facts and circumstances, the conclusion would be that though the petitioner-respondent was not in possession of the land in question but, being allottee thereof, not only he had right to resume possession but, in any event, the same could not be dealt with in the manner the same was purported to be done. 33. The appellant by referring to the records of the revenue department contended that this land was not cultivable and, accordingly, the very allotment was inappropriate. The fact remains that the land in question was allotted and allotment of land is permissible only for cultivation purpose. 33. The appellant by referring to the records of the revenue department contended that this land was not cultivable and, accordingly, the very allotment was inappropriate. The fact remains that the land in question was allotted and allotment of land is permissible only for cultivation purpose. Abandoned lands, so far as evacuee lands are concerned, would become non-cultivable due to passage of time but if an evacuee land is allotted, the same is to be cultivated. The consequences for non-cultivation have been provided. However, every effort must be made to cultivate it in the manner and through the mechanism provided in the Acts and the rules referred to above. Till such time, it is declared by an appropriate authority of the State that the land has become impossible to be cultivated, which declaration is absent in the instant case, the land in question could not be used but for cultivation. 34. Lastly, despite noting the applicable rules, the Custodian General in the order impugned in the writ petition did not make any effort to at least find out the market value of the land for the purpose of fixation of premium while passing the said order. Further more, for the purpose of fixation of premium one may proceed to take into account the market value, but the larger question is how to select the lessee? In the absence of rules governing the subject, the minimum that was required was invitation of applications from persons otherwise thought to be eligible. That too was not done in the instant case. The manner in which the Custodian General dealt with the matter denotes that he felt that the land in question is his personal property. We deprecate wholeheartedly the actions of the Custodian as well as of the Custodian General. 35. The conclusion, therefore, would be that there is no scope of interference with the intimate conclusion of the judgment and order under appeal. In the order of the Custodian General, impugned in the writ petition, he has in no uncertain terms held that the appellant has raised illegal constructions and for that purpose has imposed penalty upon the appellant. However, this penalty has been imposed for making a false declaration or statement while obtaining lease. No step has been taken in respect of the adjudged illegal construction. 36. However, this penalty has been imposed for making a false declaration or statement while obtaining lease. No step has been taken in respect of the adjudged illegal construction. 36. In the circumstances, we would only modify the judgment and order under appeal to the extent that the appellant shall remove himself lock, stock and barrel, including all illegal constructions made by him on the land in question and restore back the land to its original condition within a period of six months from today, within which period it shall be open for the Custodian to have the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-respondent cancelled or the revenue department to have a declaration made that the land in question vests in the State. In default, it shall be obligatory on the part of the Custodian to hand over possession of the land in question to the petitioner-respondent immediately after expiry of six months from today after taking possession thereof from the appellant. 37. We were minded to impose exemplary costs upon the appellant as well as upon the State, but we have, with great effort, restrained ourselves from doing so. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.