1. This Revision has been directed against the order dated 18-05-2009, passed by the respondent no.1, by virtue of which allotment of evacuee land situated at Mankote Mendhar made in favour of one Surjeet Kumar and also allotment of land made by deputy custodian poonch in favour petitioner on 30.12.2002, has been cancelled. 2. Perusal of memo of revision petition, it appears that Petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the order has been passed in mechanical manner so bad in the eyes of law. That the order is against the facts and law. That court below has exercised jurisdiction which was not vested to him as he has suo motto reviewed the allotment order of respondent no.1 dated 30-12-02 and thereby cancelled the allotment. 3. Petitioner as well as his counsel is not appearing since long, so I have heard counsel for respondents and perused the record. 4. It appears from the record that, petitioners herein filed an application before Custodian E.P. Jammu for restraining Performa respondents herein, from interfering and encroaching upon the evacuee land measuring 19K-13M under Khasra no. 517 and 517min situated at Mankote Tehsil mendher. 5. In the application it has been stated that land measuring 9 Kanal under kh. 517min was allotted to applicant and rest of the land is in their possession. That non applicants wants to grab the land. That matter was brought to the knowledge of Tehsildar (Assistant Custodian) Mendhar to visit on spot and to restrain the non applicants from encroaching the land. That no action was taken by (Assistant Custodian). 6. Performa respondents herein appeared and filed objections, it has been stated in the objection that total land measuring 19K-13 M under kh. 517 was allotted to one Surjeet Kumar and other in year 1947. Out of this land, 9Kanals of land was allotted to applicants after cancelling the allotment made in favour of Surjeet Kumar by Deputy Custodian Poonch. That land measuring 10K-13 M is in their possession and they have already made a representation for allotment to the Custodian General. That applicants are enjoying their possession on yearly rent of Rs 50/- per kanal and now they want to grab land measuring 10K-13 M which is in their possession. 7. That land measuring 10K-13 M is in their possession and they have already made a representation for allotment to the Custodian General. That applicants are enjoying their possession on yearly rent of Rs 50/- per kanal and now they want to grab land measuring 10K-13 M which is in their possession. 7. It further appears from the record and order impugned that, during the pendency of litigation before court below non applicants namely Mohammad Bashir and other filed an application for allotment of land measuring 10K under kh, no. 517 min before Custodian General, at Jammu, who endorsed the application to Custodian for report. Custodian asked for report from Assistant Custodian, who reported that land measuring 10K 13 Marlas out of Kh. No. 517 is under the occupation of Mohammad Bashir and Mohammad Fazal but allotment is on the name of Surjeet Kumar. He also reported that land measuring 9K is under occupation of Mohammad Amin and Mohammad Sharief, Petitioner herein and same has been allotted to them against rent of Rs 50/- per month. 8. Court below after hearing the matter passed the following directions:- "I have gone through the record of the case, besides have weighed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties which establishes that the evacuee property land in question has really been alienated by the allottee Shri Surjit Kumar in favour of both the parties applicants as well as non-applicants with some consideration which is against the cannons of law governing the said property. Therefore, his allotment in respect of the said land is hereby cancelled forthwith. So far as petition for restraining the non-applicants preferred by the petitioners is concerned, they have falsely stated that they are in possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 13 marlas alongwith allotted, as communicated by the Assistant Custodian concerned. Therefore, the instant petition filled by the petitioner cannot be considered. However, both the parties in the instant case, has secured the said landed property fraudulently and the applicant has succeeded in obtaining its allotment only against meager rent of Rs 50/- per kanal, per annum without any premium which is against the interests of the department. Therefore under sub-section 5 of the section 30 of the J&K State Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act, 2006. Therefore under sub-section 5 of the section 30 of the J&K State Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act, 2006. I suo moto review the said order dated 30-12-2002 passed by the Deputy Custodian Poonch and order that the petitioners shall deposit premium of the same on market rate to be provided by the concerned Revenue agency. 9. Likewise the non applicants who are in possession of the evacuee property land measuring 10 Kanals 13 Marlas covered under Khasra no. 517 are also allowed to retained by then which is in their possession but against premium to be furnished by the revenue agency plus rent of Rs 50/- per Kls per annum which both the parties shall have to pay within a month after issue of this order otherwise they shall be liable to be evicted from the land in question. Accordingly the case is disposed off. Announced Sd/- 18-5-2009 Custodian Evacuee's Property, Jammu 10. Section 9 of E.P Act describe and power and duty of Custodian. As per section Custodian has power to take any step necessary for administering, managing and preserving the evacuee property. Custodian appointed under Act is like an administrator of Custodian Property and he has each and every right to protect the property belonging to Custodian Department from being trespassed or encroached. Custodian has right to manage and to keep the property of Custodian in order, for the benefit of evacuee. Custodian Department is deemed to be a trustee of evacuee property. Any person occupying, supervising or managing the property of an evacuee without the approval of Custodian is deemed to be in unauthorized possession. 11. In the present case land in question was allotted to one Surjeet Kumar, who further alienated and allowed the petitioners and Performa respondents to occupy the land, without permission of Custodian Department. Thereafter Deputy Custodian, Poonch allotted the land to petitioner on 30-12-02, which was in their illegal occupation. 12. Law is very much clear that as per Rule 14 clause 3(iv) of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Rules, Custodian has power to cancel the allotment, in case allottee of custodian property sub-lets or allows any other person to occupy the property of custodian dept. which has been allotted to him. An allottee is always considered as licensee of property. 13. Law is very much clear that as per Rule 14 clause 3(iv) of Evacuee (Administration of Property) Rules, Custodian has power to cancel the allotment, in case allottee of custodian property sub-lets or allows any other person to occupy the property of custodian dept. which has been allotted to him. An allottee is always considered as licensee of property. 13. So order of cancellation of allotment of land made in favour of original allottee namely Surjeet Kumar by Custodian is correct and legal. Subsequent allotment of land made in favour of petitioners herein with regard to land which was in their occupation by Deputy Custodian Poonch on 20-12-02, was without jurisdiction and this allotment was also rightly cancelled by the Custodian. 14. Now question arises as to whether, court below has suo motto power to cancel the order of allotment dated 30-12-2002, made in favour of petitioners, regarding land measuring 9Kanal under kh. No. 517 out of land allotted to Surjeet kumar, by Deputy Custodian, poonch 15. Section 30(4) of Evacuee Property Act reads as under:- Section 30 Appeal, review and revision. Sub-Clause :4 The custodian General or Custodian may, at any time, either on his own motion or on application made to him in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act which is pending before, of has been disposed of, by an officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in the said proceeding and may pass such order in relation thereto as he think fit: As per section 30(4) Custodian has power to call for record of any proceeding pending or disposed off by his subordinate officers for seeing legality and propriety of any order passed and thereafter Custodian may revise any order passed by any officer subordinate to him at any time. Deputy Custodian is an officer, subordinate to Custodian. Any order passed by any officer without following procedure laid down in act or rules, such order is always revisable by higher forum suo motto or an application made by any party. 16. Deputy Custodian is an officer, subordinate to Custodian. Any order passed by any officer without following procedure laid down in act or rules, such order is always revisable by higher forum suo motto or an application made by any party. 16. So order of Custodian Jammu dt 18.5.2009, under challenge, thereby cancelling the order of allotment of land made in favour of original allottee Surjeet kumar and also cancelling the order dated 30-12-2002, passed by Deputy Custodian with regard to allotment of land measuring 9 kanals under khasra no.517 situated at Mankote made in favour of petitioners, doest not suffer from any infirmity of law. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that order of court below does not suffers from any legal infirmity. Accordingly revision petition is dismissed without any cost. 18. File of court below be sent back along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record after due compilation.