JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo motu revision under section 38-B of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. 2. Shri Krishna Chandra Misra, O.P. 2 was granted Praja Patta by the ex-Ruler of Keonjhar who was Marfatdar of the private deity Baladev Jew. His patta number is 12/57-58 in respect of 1.80 acres out of 19.80 acres of Plot No 222. This sanction was made on 26-10-1957. Opposite party 2 continued in cultivating possession of the said land and his residential house is also situated within the boundary of the said land. Settlement recorded this as Plot No. 416 measuring an area of 0.72 acre with opposite party 2's homestead land and Plot No. 417 recording 1.23 acres being cultivable land. Possession was noted in the remarks column of the Records-of-Right to the effect that opposite party 2 is in possession on the basis of a void patta. 3. Opposite party 2 is also paying holding tax since 1965 and rent to ex-Marfatdar for patta land. The estate vested on 18-3-1974. But the Ruler continued as Marfatdar till 12-4-1970 and handed over this temple to Endowment Department in 1970. 4. O. E. A. Collector, Keonjhar in O. E. A. Case No. 169/76 rejected the claim of opposite party 2 on 28-2-1977 on the ground that the lease is void and in contravention of section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act. Executive Officer filed application before the O E. A. Collector in September 1979 relating to Plot No. 222 and claimed for settlement with the deity. O. E. A. Collector by his order dated 26-5-1982 in O. E. A. Case No. 12/79 settled this land with the deity although the Deity O. P. 1 was not in khas possession of the land at the time of vesting. O E. A Collector further held that opposite party 2 is forcibly occupying the deity's land hold he treated this as constructive possession of the deity. As such he hold that opposite party 1 is in khas possession of the land and possession of opposite party 2 is the possession of a trespasser. 5. Additional Standing Counsel argues that the settlement in favour of opposite party 1 cannot be made as he was not in khas possession of the land on the date of vesting. As such he hold that opposite party 1 is in khas possession of the land and possession of opposite party 2 is the possession of a trespasser. 5. Additional Standing Counsel argues that the settlement in favour of opposite party 1 cannot be made as he was not in khas possession of the land on the date of vesting. Opposite party 2 being in illegal possession of land from 1957 to 1974 under a void transfer, he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Opposite party 2 perfected his title on the land before the date of vesting. 6. Sri Srinivas Misra (2), Advocate appearing for O. P. 2 points out that no claim was made by O. P. 1 for this land. Plot No. 222 is not found in public notice already issued. Therefore, settlement of this land with the deity, O. P. 1 is wrong. He has produced rent receipt from the Debottar Department of Raja as well as Government. He also produced Municipal receipt from 1970 to 1983. In 1982 Executive Officer gave a notice to O. P. 2 to vacate this land. O. P. 2 has replied to this. There is no response from the Executive Officer. 7. Sri Srinivas Misra relied on AIR 1977 S. C. 5 to show that possession of trespasser cannot be possession of an ex-intermediary. He also relied on 55(1983) C. L. T. 28 (B. R. D.) wherein I have held that in adverse possession in such cases full right can accrue against the ex-intermediary. 8. The Deity, O. P. 1 has filed a statement showing cause as to why his case should not be allowed. The main issues are-permission of Endowment Commissioner has not been taken for giving a permanent lease, as such the lease in favour of O. P. 2 is void, payment of holding-tax does not confer any permanent or heritable rights since the Deity is a perpetual minor; possession of others is the possession of Deity; Deity is a Public Religious Endowment; O P 2 did not file appeal within time limit; Deity is a privileged raiyat under the O. L. R. Act; trespasser's possession amounts to constructive possession of the deity: adverse possession cannot be claimed as a void patta. 9. 9. Both Sri Srinivas Misra (2) and Additional Standing Counsel point out that the Deity was not a public deity requiring Endowment Commissioner's permission for a permanent lease. As such the lease is valid. I agree with them. 10. Even if the lease is void, adverse possession for over 17 years does give title to O. P. 2. It is not correct to say that title of the trespasser is the title of the owner. Additional Standing Counsel relies on AIR 1965 S.C. 524 and AIR 1977 S.C. 5 wherein it has been held that possession of the trespasser cannot be the khas possession of the exintermediary. Both these lawyers pointed out that the deity never claimed this disputed land. But the O.E.A. Collector settled this land on his own initiative. Suo motu revisions can be started even where no appeal or revision has been filed in time. 11. I agree with the views of both the Counsel and would reject the plea taken by the Deity. 12. I would, therefore, set aside the settlement made in favour of the Deity by the O.E.A. Collector by his order dated 26-5-1982. Land may be settled in favour of O. P. 2. 13. Revision allowed.