1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Custodian General dated 09-06-2009, by virtue of which he has dismissed the appeal/revision against the order of Custodian Evacuee Property, Jammu dated 12-04-04. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Kanta Devi approached the Custodian Evacuee Property and filed a petition, stating that petitioner herein have illegally and unauthorizedly occupied the Evacuee Property measuring 2K-13M under kh. 286 situated at Chak Malka Tehsil Jammu. That the said land was earlier allotted to her father Dhana Megh and she has been included in the allotment of Mangi Wd/o Dhana as per register of cancellation 1970.That petitioners herein raising the construction over the land without any authority and bent upon to alienate the same. Accordingly Kanta Devi, prayed for restraining the petitioners herein from indulging in such activities. Custodian Evacuee Property Jammu on 12-7-04 passed an interim direction of maintaining of status quo on spot. Meantime Kanta Devi presented one more application, thereby requesting the Custodian Evacuee Property for keeping the land on superdari, as petitioners herein were alienating the property. Custodian Evacuee Property on 12-10-04 kept the land on Superdanama of Lambardar and Chowkidar of the area. Petitioners herein filed a revision petition before Tribunal against order dated 12-10-04, but petitioners were advised to approach Custodian General for redressal of his grievances. 3. Accordingly, matter was taken before court below. During the course of argument before the court below it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that original allottee Dhana Megh and his wife were having no male issue. The land in question thus came into cultivating possession of their daughter Jeeto Devi who was married to Tilak Raj. Both of them expired but during life time they inducted petitioners in cultivation possession of land. As they have no other land, so they have constructed shed for accommodating their family. Accordingly it was argued that order of Custodian Evacuee Property dated 12-10-04, thereby keeping the land on superdama of lambardar and chowkidari be set aside. 4. Court below after examining the rival contentions and record, came to conclusion that petitioners are in unauthorized possession of land in question and they have no legal right over the land, accordingly court below dismissed the revision and also held that in the interest of evacuee department that the custodian shall initiate proceeding for leasing out the property under law. 5. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. From the perusal of record, I have not found any single legal document from which, it can be inferred, that petitioners at all were given possession of land. It is fact that the land was originally allotted to Dhana Megh and after his death land came into possession of his daughter Jeeto Devi and her husband Tilak Raj. The said original allottee was having no male child. Section 67 of Tenancy Act is relevant for deciding the matter, 6. Section 67 of Tenancy Act reads as under:- Succession to right of occupancy (1) When a tenant having a right of occupancy in any land dies, the right shall devolve- (a) on his male lineal descendants, if any, in the male line of descent; Explanation - "Male lineal descendants" includes a son, formally adopted according to Hindu Law, and in accordance with any Acts in force in the State regarding such adoptions; (b) Failing such male lineal descendants on (i) his widows, or (ii) father's widow, or (iii) the widow of male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, who predeceased the late tenant; Provided that, such widow has not remarried, and further that the right of female succeeding to a right of occupancy under this clause shall be extinguished when she dies or remarries, or abandons the land, or is under the provisions of this Act ejected therefrom, and (c) failing such descendants and widows, or if a female succeeds to the tenancy under clause (b), then when her interest terminates, or his male collateral relatives in the male line of descent from the common ancestor of the deceased tenant and those relatives. 7. A plain reading of this section it is evident, that a daughter is not entitled to succeed the occupancy right of land of her father. It is only male lineal descendant or widow who is permitted to succeed occupancy right. This prohibition is absolute and clear. So right of deceased tenant devolves on his male lineal descendant and in absence of male lineal descent his widow and other person excluding daughter. When a daughter cannot inherit occupancy right of her father, she is debarred from alienating or transferring the occupancy right of her father 8. This prohibition is absolute and clear. So right of deceased tenant devolves on his male lineal descendant and in absence of male lineal descent his widow and other person excluding daughter. When a daughter cannot inherit occupancy right of her father, she is debarred from alienating or transferring the occupancy right of her father 8. So in present case any alienation or transfer of occupancy right, made by daughter and her husband of original allottee Dhana Megh, with regard to custodian property is illegal and nonest in the eyes of law. Further, in case any possession of disputed land has been given to petitioners by Jeeto devi and her Tilak Raj, as averred by the petitioner, that is not legal and against the mandatory provision of law. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the knowledge of this court, with regard to Khasra Girdawari of 2002 of land, which bears entry of petitioners. A single entry that too entered by a Patwari does not help the petitioners, that their possession was legal. There is no evidence, as to how and under what circumstances, Patwari changed the Girdawari entries in favour of petitioners in 2002, when he was not competent to do so. 10. A person who is not in legal possession of property of custodian and is only a trespasser having unauthorizely entered into property, has no right to retain it. Any person occupying, supervising or managing the property of an evacuee without the approval of Custodian is deemed to be in unauthorized possession. 11. 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. 12. 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.