JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the order of the Tahsildar of Betanoti (opposite party no. 4) directing eviction of the petitioner in a proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and the appellate and the revisional orders upholding the direction for eviction. 2. The Revenue Inspector of Betanoti reported to the Tahsildar that the petitioner had encroached upon 35 decimals of land in plot no. 1596. Overruling the petitioner's objection on the ground that the land which belonged to a Deity had been settled with him by the Sub-Divisional Officer as its trustee, the Tahsildar ordered eviction on 31-12-1975 vide Annexure-7. In appeal, petitioner contended that the land in question was not property of Government and as such the statute had no application. The Sub-Divisional Officer did not examine the question but upheld the order of eviction. Before the Additional District Magistrate in revision, the objection was reiterated. The revisional authority extracted the entire section 2 of the Act in his order and took the view that sub-clause (e) of section 2 was relevant and concluded by holding that the land was Government property and as such the order of eviction was justified. For his conclusion, he mainly relied upon certain observations of the Commissioner of Endowments and the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. 3. There is no dispute before us that the Act is intended to make provision for prevention of unauthorised occupation of lands which are property of Government. As such, the Act would not be applicable to any land which would not be property of Government. In the instant case, the opposite parties have taken the stand that clause (e) of section 2 of the Act applies. We proceed to extract that provision. 4. As such, the Act would not be applicable to any land which would not be property of Government. In the instant case, the opposite parties have taken the stand that clause (e) of section 2 of the Act applies. We proceed to extract that provision. 4. Section 2 of the Act, as far as relevant, provides :- "Property of Government :- Subject to the provisions of any land for the time being in force, the following classes of lands are hereby declared to be the property of Government for the purposes of this Act, namely :- (e) lands belonging to an establishment or undertaking owned, controlled or managed by - (i) any State Government or a Department of such Government ; (ii) any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the share capital is held by one or more State Governments ; or (iii) a corporation established by law which is owned, controlled or managed by any State Government." Admittedly the property belonged to Sri Raghunath Jew, a Deity whose management has been taken over by the State Government under Chapter-VII of the Endowments Act. During the regime of the ex-State of Mayurbhanj, this institution had been treated as public and the State was in its management. The record shows that the Deity was treated as an intermediary and its properties including the property in question vested under the Abolition Act and have been settled on occupancy basis with the Deity. If the property belonged to the State as such, there could have been no settlement with the Deity. Clause (e) refers to 'establishment' or 'undertaking'. We have, therefore, to examine whether the Deity is either an 'establishment' or an 'undertaking'. If the answer is affirmative, the next point for examination would be whether it is owned, controlled or managed by the State Government or any of its Departments or a company where Government own not less than 51 per cent of the share capital or a corporation established by law and owned, controlled or managed by the State Government. The two words 'establishment' and 'undertaking' have not been defined in the statute and we must, therefore, assign to them the common sense meaning. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, establishment' means : "established or stable condition ; ecclesiastical system established by law; a permanent military, naval or civil organisation". The two words 'establishment' and 'undertaking' have not been defined in the statute and we must, therefore, assign to them the common sense meaning. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, establishment' means : "established or stable condition ; ecclesiastical system established by law; a permanent military, naval or civil organisation". Very often we come across phrases like 'industrial establishment', 'commercial establishment' et cetera. 'Undertaking' would mean an enterprise. Even often it is used in a commercial sense as 'business undertaking', industrial undertaking et cetera. It is difficult to conceive that a religious institution like a Hindu temple can constitute either an 'establishment' or an 'undertaking' in the sense the words have been used in section 2(e) of the Act. The authorities under the statute appeared to have clearly gone wrong in holding that the Deity was either an undertaking or an establishment within the meaning of the statute. Once we hold that the Deity is not either an establishment or an undertaking, its lands would not constitute Government property by application of clause (e). There is another difficulty. The institution is neither owned nor controlled or managed by the State Government or any of its Departments. The status of the Sub-Divisional Officer is that of a trustee. With reference to the management of the institution, he is not accountable to the State Government but under the statute would be responsible like other trustees to the Commissioner of Endowments. As such, clause (e) of section 2 of the Act would have no application at all even if it could be held that the Deity came either under 'establishment' or 'undertaking'. If the land is not Government property, the special statute, i.e. the Act, has no application. The Act provides a summary remedy and denies to the person said to be in encroachment the usual process of defence available at common law. 5. On the analysis indicated, the Act has no application to the property and the proceeding under the statute is without jurisdiction and wholly misconceived. We accordingly quash the order of the Tahsildar as affirmed in appeal and revision. We direct parties to bear their own costs. P.K. Mohanti, J. - I agree. Final Result : Allowed