1. Petitioners have filed present revision petition against the order of Respondent no. 4, by virtue of which respondent no. 4 has leased out land measuring eight and half Marla under Kh No. 276 situated at Digiana, Jammu for a period of 40 years in favour of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 for langer purpose. 2. Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, order impugned is against facts and law. That petitioner no. 1 had purchased the land in question on bona fide belief in term of an agreement dt 10.5.2006.. However this aspect has not been considered by respondent no. 4. That this Hon'ble Court in his order dated 29.9.09 categorically held that respondent no. 4 shall pass fresh order after hearing the petitioners and after spot inspection. That respondent no. 4 never visited on spot. That parties were not called in any case, if respondent no. 4 had visited the spot. That respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 could not claim better title. That petitioners are displaced persons of 1947. That petitioner no. 2 also did not consider the facts that, petitioner no. 2 had already filed application for regularization of land. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, respondents herein preferred a petition on behalf of SRI GURU SINGH SABHA HARGOVIND SAHIB DIGIANA JAMMU, before Custodian on 19.5.2007, in which it has been stated that, evacuee land measuring seven marals under kh. No. 272 of Estate Digiana Jammu, had been used by them for Langer purpose of the Gurudwara. That out of this land four marlas of land was given to one Shamsher Singh at the time of developing of Colony, That after the death of said Shamsher Singh his son Amarjeet Singh has stated that he has no objection to the utilization of land in question for by Gurdwara. That gurdwara committee is ready to give rent and will not bye pass rules. Along with main petition, an ancillary application was also filled in which it has been averred that respondents /petitioners herein, without any right are trying to raise construction upon the land unauthorisedly. 4. Accordingly, it was prayed that land in question be regularized against premium and payment of rent. 5. On 19.5.2007 Custodian granted statusquo order and notices were issued to petitioners herein. Petitioner no. 4. Accordingly, it was prayed that land in question be regularized against premium and payment of rent. 5. On 19.5.2007 Custodian granted statusquo order and notices were issued to petitioners herein. Petitioner no. 1 herein, instead of approaching the Custodian filed a revision before special tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.9.2007.Thereafter Paramjit Singh petitioner herein, appeared before the Custodian and filed an application on behalf of Tajinder Kour petitioner no. 2 herein, for regularization of land in her favour. 6. Meanwhile land was retained by Custodian department under his key and seal. It further appears from the order impugned that petitioners, herein were asked to pay premium of the said land on the basis of the prevalent market rate but they declined. Respondents herein stated that they are ready to pay rate of land as Rs. 20.00 lakh per kanals as per communication of Tehsildar of area. 7. Accordingly, recommendation was made to Custodian General for leasing the land for Langer purpose for a period of 40 yrs. on 8.10.2007. Custodian General on 23.10.2007 re affixed the premium as Rs. 27.00 lacs, instead of Rs. 20.00 lacs and monthly rent of Rs. 2000/-. Custodian General on 30.10.2007 sanctioned the leasing of land in favour of respondents for Langer purpose. It appears that as per patwari, land was falling in khasra no. 276 and not 272, so on 12. 11. 2007, custodian general issued a corrigendum that in his order dt.23.10 2007, it be read as 276 instead of 272. 8. This Order was challenged by petitioners herein before Special Tribunal, Jammu and this Tribunal on 29.9.2009 quashed the order and remanded the Case to Custodian to pass fresh order after hearing petitioners herein and after spot inspection. Relevant extract reads as under:- 9. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and case is sent back to Custodian, Jammu to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and after spot inspection. 10. File of Custodian be sent to Custodian. Dated:-29-09-2009 Sd/-Member 11. Relevant extract reads as under:- 9. Accordingly the impugned order is quashed and case is sent back to Custodian, Jammu to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and after spot inspection. 10. File of Custodian be sent to Custodian. Dated:-29-09-2009 Sd/-Member 11. Custodian after adjudicating upon remand order, passed an order on 24.5.2010 and thereby upheld order of leasing the land to Gurdawara for langer purpose The court below, while deciding the matter held that recommendation made by the court dated 08-10-2007 for leasing out the land in question in favour of respondents and subsequent orders issued by Custodian General and Custodian on 23-10-2007 and 30-10-2007 respectively are in consonance with the provision of law under Evacuee Property Act and rules there under. However court below enhanced the rate from 27.00 lacs to 30.00 lacs per kanal as premium due to high rates. 12. While arguing the matter counsel for petitioners has elaborated all grounds taken in revision petition, whereas respondent counsel has supported order of court below. 13. I have given my thought consideration to whole aspects of matter and law on the point. 14. It has not been denied by any party that, land in question is not a custodian land. No one has any exclusive legal right to retain the possession of Custodian land, except procedure laid down in Evacuee Property Act and rule thereon. Custodian is appointed in term of section 4 of E.P. Act. As per section 5 of act, all property of custodian vest to custodian. Custodian is termed as trustee of property of evacuee. Custodian under act is an administrator of property of E. Department, he has right to look after and manage the property, so that it may not be encroached or illegally disposed of. Custodian has also right to allot or lease out the custodian property to any one, according to act and rules thereon, for earning revenue for department. 15. Rule 13-C of E.P. Act provides procedure for fixation of premium and rent in respect of vacant evacuee land. Custodian has also right to allot or lease out the custodian property to any one, according to act and rules thereon, for earning revenue for department. 15. Rule 13-C of E.P. Act provides procedure for fixation of premium and rent in respect of vacant evacuee land. Rule 13-C reads is as under: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 13, the Custodian shall put to an open auction lease of any evacuee vacant land for a period not exceeding 40 years for determination of premium to be charged from the lessee to whom such land is leased out or may charge the premium and ground rent annually after taking into consideration the market value of such land of locality in which it is situate. The 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. 16. A plain reading of this section, it is evident that it is for Custodian to follow one of the options provided in this rule with regard to leasing of evacuee vacant land. First option is that, Custodian shall put an open auction lease of land not exceeding 40 years, for determination of premium to be charged. Second option is that custodian may fix and charge the premium and ground rent annually, after taking into consideration the market value of such land of locality in which it is situate. With regard to premium and ground rent, the user of land is to be considered. Because rates differ for residential, commercial or industrial as the case may be. 17. In preset case respondent no. 4 has chosen second option. It is only custodian, who is best judge to proceed with any one option mentioned in these rules, no one has legal right to ask custodian to proceed in certain way. 18. The arguments of the counsel of the petitioner that, they were not put notice by Custodian while conducting spot inspection is not tenable,because impugned order clearly reveals that, Custodian inspected the spot and it has also come into impugned that, petitioners could not produce any documentary evidence with regard to occupation of land. It has also come in order, that land in question is being grabbed by petitioners herein and they are simply as trespasser. 19. It has also come in order, that land in question is being grabbed by petitioners herein and they are simply as trespasser. 19. Agreement to sell executed by vendor in favour of petitioner paramjeet singh with regard to land on 10.5.2006, has no value in the eyes of law, because vendor was neither allottee of land nor he was legal owner of land. 20. Agreement to sell executed by a vendor with regard to a property for which, vendor has no legal title, that document does not confer any right in favour of vendee. 21. In present case as already discussed above, vendor in agreement to sell relied by petitioner, was having no legal right on land. Petitioner may approach civil court for recovery of their money against vendor. The receipt of water connection and notice of Municipality also does not confer legal title of petitioners on land, because land is an evacuee land. 22. Further record of Custodian reveals that, land has already been handed over to Gurudwara Management Parbandhak Committee on 2.7.2010. 23. By passing order under challenge, court below has not exceeded his jurisdiction, which was vested to him under E.P. Act. Court below has passed order in conformity with provision of Evacuee property act. 24. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed, as it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. File of the court below is sent back along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record after due compilation.