JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo motu revision under Section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 against the order dated 31-3-1978 of the O. E. A. Collector and Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar passed in Vesting Case No. 63 (T)/77. 2. Opposite party argues that Plot No. 2277 in Khata No. 1878 was leased out by the Executive Officer of Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, O. P. 1. Endowment Commissioner's permission was not taken. There was no note about rendering service to opposite party 1. O E. A Collector settled this land in favour of opposite party 2 and predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties 3, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) and 3(e) under Sections 6, 7 and 8(3) of the O E. A. Act. 3. Standing Counsel argues that this is a Trust Estate. The old Record-of-Rights says that land was recorded as Bagayat and wood from trees supplied for construction of Rath for the deity for car festival and rent was remitted accordingly. Hal Plot No. 2277 under Khata No. 1878 corresponds to old/plot No. 968/3263. He has obtained a fresh report from the Amin to this effect. In the old settlement the incidence 'service tenure' is clearly noted. 4. Shri C.A. Rao, Advocate appearing for opposite party 4 and Sri B.K. Dagara appearing for opposite party 1 Lingaraj Mahaprabhu, have nothing to add what the Standing Counsel says. 5. Shri P.K. Biswal appearing for opposite parties 2, 3 and 3(a) says that the Old Plot No. 958/3263 measures an area of Ac.1.382 whereas Plot No 2277 measures an area of Ac.0.260. He claims that Plot No. 2277 is not part of the current settlement Plot No. 968/3263. He admits that there are three Plots 2279, 2267 and 2282 in Hal Settlement Khata No. 461 and 433. In Plot No. 2282 Parwati Devi is the recorded tenant. In Plot Nos. 2279 and 2267 opposite party 4, Nabakishore Badu is the occupancy raiyat in Khata 366. Satya Priya Mohanty and Narayan Mohapatra are recorded as sikimi tenants in this Khata. In both these plots the incidence of service to deity is recorded. He refers to Amin's report of local enquiry in 1956 during the present settlement proceeding confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 14-6-1956. This report shows that Hal Plot No 2277 was Benumbari in the old settlement and was found to be an open homestead land. In both these plots the incidence of service to deity is recorded. He refers to Amin's report of local enquiry in 1956 during the present settlement proceeding confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 14-6-1956. This report shows that Hal Plot No 2277 was Benumbari in the old settlement and was found to be an open homestead land. He claims that settlement is final and there is no contest. As such it cannot be challenged now. He also says that Amin only compared the certified copy of the Sabik map with that of Hal map and not the original map. 6. I have seen the maps. The maps of the last two settlements are original. The trace map of 1877-78 Settlement is the certified copy of the map and this has been produced. The original is perhaps not available. On comparing this map I have no difficulty in saying that plot No. 2277 is part of current settlement plot 968/3263. In the current settlement this plot is recorded with incidence of service. Plot 2277 will also have the same incidence. Settlement has no right to change the right and title in respect of any land. 7. I would, therefore, accept the latest report of the Amin produced by the Standing Counsel. I would accept this revision. 8. I would set aside the order of the O. E. A Collector dated 31-3-1978 settling the land with opposite party 2 and predecessor-in-interest of opposite parties 3 and 3(a) to 3(e) under Section 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. I would settle this land with the deity Lingaraj Mahaprabhu with the right of possession with opposite party 2 and successors-in-interest of opposite party 3(dead) subject to the condition that they render service to the deity noted in the previous settlement records. 9. Revision allowed Final Result : Allowed