1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of respondent no. 1 (Custodian General), by virtue of which order of Custodian dated. 11.2.2006, has been set aside and Custodian Evacuee property Jammu, has been directed to put respondent no. 4 in possession of land measuring 15k 3M comprising survey numbers 72 situated at Nand Pur Gujjaran Tehsil Jammu. 2. Petitioners, the legal heirs of deceased Chaman Lal, have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that order has been passed against the principle of natural justice. That Court below with malafide intention, without fixing the date for announcing the order and informing the petitioner, in a concealed manner passed impugned judgment. That order has been passed with malafide intention, which is against principle of natural justice. That respondent No.2 without serving surrender notice to petitioner has directed Deputy Custodian Rural to dispossess the petitioner. 3. I have heard both counsels at length. Counsel for the petitioner has elaborated all the grounds mentioned in the memo of Revision petition. 4. Whereas the counsel for the respondent has argued that revision petition is time barred and no sufficient ground has mentioned. That order impugned is legal and has been passed according to act and rules governing thereon. He has supported the impugned order. 5. Brief facts of the case emerging from record and pleading are that, one Dev Raj (Respondent no.4) and his mother deceased Amboo, filed an application on 21-06-2K, against Chaman lal, before Custodian for restoration of possession of land measuring 15K -3M following under Khasra No:-72 situated in Village Nandpur Gujran, Tehsil and District:-Jammu on the grounds that, land measuring 32K 15M under Khasra No. 48, 51 and 72 was allotted to one Achhar (the father of Dev Raj and husband of Ambo), as local allottee in term of Cabinet order no. 578-c of 1954. After his death in 1964 land was partitioned between deceased two sons, namely Mulk Raj born to first wife and Dev raj (respondent no. 4 herein) born to second wife namely Amboo. In this way land measuring 17k 12m came to Mulkh Raj and land measuring 15k 3 M came into share of Dev Raj. Dev Raj being minor and his mother Amboo being lady gave land to one Chaman Lal,the predecessor of petitioner herein, on contract. 4 herein) born to second wife namely Amboo. In this way land measuring 17k 12m came to Mulkh Raj and land measuring 15k 3 M came into share of Dev Raj. Dev Raj being minor and his mother Amboo being lady gave land to one Chaman Lal,the predecessor of petitioner herein, on contract. After, when contract was over and Dev Raj became major, he asked to Chaman lal for giving land, but he refused. 6. Both parties contested the case and for the purpose of arriving decision, custodian directed both the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter on 30-11-2002, the Custodian closed the evidence of Chaman Lal and fixed the case for arguments. During the intervening time, respondent Chaman Lal filed an application for transfer of case before Custodian General. It was rejected on 30-12-2002. The matter was taken before this Tribunal by medium of revision petition and this Tribunal disposed of the case on 26-03-2003. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Tribunal, Dev Raj approached, before Hon'ble High Court in OWP No:-836/03 and Hon'ble High Court on 19-11-2004, set aside the order of Tribunal and remanded case back to tribunal. This Tribunal on 19-07-2005 remanded the case to Custodian with direction that, Chaman Lal shall lead evidence within one month. 8. On adjudication upon application, Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu dismissed the application on 11-02-2006 and held that,Chaman Lal is legally entitled to retain possession. 9. The matter was taken before Custodian General, who set aside the order of custodian, on the ground that, court below has passed the order in contravention of Cabinet Order No:-578-C of 1954. The concluding of impugned order read as under:- "The aforesaid references abundantly made it clear that respondents father Munshi Ram was not included in the family of late Achar at the time of allotment of Evacuee Property land in question made in favour of said Achar under Cabinet Order No:-578-C of 1954, which property would devolve only on his surviving legal heirs in terms of para 15(b) of the said Cabinet order including the petitioner Dev Raj. The respondent Chaman Lal (deceased) or his successors in interest can not claim that the said land has devolved on him/them by way of partition either during the survival or after the death of Achar (original allottee). The respondent Chaman Lal (deceased) or his successors in interest can not claim that the said land has devolved on him/them by way of partition either during the survival or after the death of Achar (original allottee). There is an ample evidence available on record of the court below which reveals that the land in question has come to the possession of respondent Chaman Lal (deceased) for cultivating purposes on behalf of a Dev Raj a minor and Mst Ambo a widow as they were legally competent to do so in terms of para 6 of aforementioned cabinet order No.578-C of 1954 although both the parties have produced witnesses to substantiate their claim, but the statements recorded from the witnesses produced by the petitioner (Dev Raj) are collaborated by the Revenue documents. 10. Without divulging on other questions raised by the respondent during the arguments of the case pertaining to the land in question, I, in view of aforementioned position feel that the petitioner (Dev Raj) is a legal, genuine and rightful claimant of the said land in dispute and the court below has not appreciated the material available on record and passed the impugned order dated:-11-02-2006 which is not based on facts and law. I therefore, allow the revision in hand and quash the order dated:-11-02-2006 passed by the Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu (impugned before this court). The Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu is directed to put the question (Dev Raj) in possession of the land in question forthwith. A copy of this order be sent to court below for information and follow-up action. File be consigned to records after due completion. 11. Order passed today sd/Cutodian General 9th June, 2009. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of matter and also gone through relevant law governing the matter. 12. Cabinet order no. 578-C of 1954 was made for allotment of land to displaced person and local. This order prescribes procedure for allotment of land to displaced person or local as per family strength. Vide SRO 328 DATED 23. 6.1969 rule 15-B was inserted for procedure regarding survivorship. 12. Cabinet order no. 578-C of 1954 was made for allotment of land to displaced person and local. This order prescribes procedure for allotment of land to displaced person or local as per family strength. Vide SRO 328 DATED 23. 6.1969 rule 15-B was inserted for procedure regarding survivorship. It reads as under:- 15-B. Procedure regarding Survivorship (1) -- -- -- -- -- (2) if an allottee dies, his interest in the allotted and shall devolve on other members of his family in whose favour allotment of land has been originally made or regularized under these rules and on those who may have become members of the family by way of marriage, birth or adoption after such allotment excluding those who may have died earlier or may have left the family on account of marriage or adoption. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- A plain reading of this provision, it is evident that, if a allottee, who has been allotted land in term of Cabinet Order 578-C of 1954, dies, his interest in the allotted land shall devolve on the members of his family, in whose favour of allotment of land has originally been made or regularized under these rules and on those also who may have become members of family by way of marriage, birth or adoption after such allotment. 14. In present case, it is admitted fact that deceased Achar was allotted land in term of cabinet order no 578-c of 1954. In file of court below, there is copy of cancellation register of 1970 issued by Dy provincial rehabilitation officer. As per this cancellation register of 1970,family of Achar was consisting of 7 members and it does not include name of Munshi Ram the father of Chaman lal, through whom he was claiming land in question. There is also another photocopy of registration of cancellation, which reveals that, Munshi Ram and chaman lal constituted a separate family and Chaman lal has been shown as son of Munshi Ram. 15. In this way finding recorded by court below that, Munshi Ram was having separate family having their names in different register of cancellation for the year 1970, in which name of chaman Lal has been included as son, is correct and based on legal documents. 16. Achar was predecessor of Dev Raj and Mulk Raj. 15. In this way finding recorded by court below that, Munshi Ram was having separate family having their names in different register of cancellation for the year 1970, in which name of chaman Lal has been included as son, is correct and based on legal documents. 16. Achar was predecessor of Dev Raj and Mulk Raj. So, as per law, land allotted to Achar, has to be devolved as per rule 15 B of cabinet order 578 -- C OF 1954 to members of his family, in whose favour of allotment of land has originally been made or regularized under these rules and on those also who may have become members of family by way of marriage, birth or adoption after such allotment. 17. No Stanger or person, who does not fall in any of category mentioned in rule 15 B or whose name does not exist in register of cancellation, is entitle to interest in allotted land. 18. So in present case only the land allotted to Achar, was to be devolved on Dev raj and Mulk Raj equally in term of rule 15-B of cabinet order 578-C of 1954. 19. Rule 5 of cabinet order 578-c of 1954 deals with personal cultivation of land. Further rule 6 of cabinet order 578-C OF 1954, is also relevant for deciding present matter. It reads as under:- Rule 6 -- Exemption from Personal cultivation in certain cases. (1) Nothing in Para 5 shall apply to- (a) Persons employed in the Defense Forces of the Indian Union or the State Militia; (b) Widows. (c) Minors (d) Persons suffering from any physical disability or mental infirmity; Bare perusal of this rule it is evident that, widow, minor, persons suffering from physical disability and mental infirmity and defense employee are entitled to exemption from personal cultivation. It means that categories of persons mentioned in rule 6 of cabinet order 578 -- c of 1954, can engage or hire laborers and servant for cultivation of land. The land, so cultivated by hired laborer or servant, in that eventuality, shall be deemed to be personal cultivation, of these categories of person. In present case, finding arrived by Court below that Chaman Lal deceased was cultivating the land on behalf of Achar and his son Dev Raj is based on correct law. The land, so cultivated by hired laborer or servant, in that eventuality, shall be deemed to be personal cultivation, of these categories of person. In present case, finding arrived by Court below that Chaman Lal deceased was cultivating the land on behalf of Achar and his son Dev Raj is based on correct law. This finding is further supported with entry made in girdawari, which clearly reveals that, deceased chaman lal was cultivating the land in question, on cash payment. 20. The arguments of the counsel for the petitioner that, Chaman lal was entitled to benefit of Government order 317 REH of 1971 and Chief Minister's guide line of 1978, is not tenable, because deceased Achar was holding the land much prior to these orders and guidelines. 21. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that order of Court below does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmities. Hence revision petition is dismissed. The record of Court below is sent back along with this order and present file be consigned to record after completion.