JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo-motu revision under Section 38-B of the O. E. A. Act against the order dated 18-4-1981 of the O. E. A. Collector, Niali passed in objection case No 55/79 out of O. E. A. Case 451 of 77-78. 2. Previous Executive Officer of Sri Madhabananda Jew leased out Ac 0.02 090 under Khata 6, Plot No. 60 in village Adashpur to Smt. Chandrakanti Jain, who is O. P. 1 in this case. The total land under the khata measures to Ac. 7.75. The Endowment Commissioner permitted permanent lease in favour of O. P. 1 on 6-1-75 in O. P. case No. 925/70 under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act Executive Officer of the deity execute a permanent registered patta on 8-1-75. 3. Executive Officer of the deity claimed settlement of this land in O. E. A. case No 451/77. O. P. 1 objected this. Misc. Case No. 55/79, was started on this objection. O. E. A. Collector rejected this objection on 18-4-81 on the ground that execution of permanent lease deed dated 8-1-75 could not confer any right on O. P. 1 as the estate vested in Government prior to this date i. e. on 18-3-74. He settled the disputed land with the deity under Section 7(d) of the O. E. A. Act. 4. Additional Standing Counsel points out that Endowment Commissioner's order dated 6-1-75 relates to applications filed before vesting. Date of application is material. Deity cannot claim settlement under Sections 6 and 7(d) of the O. E. A. Act of this disputed land. 5. Deity is declared ex-parte in this case. 6. Shri Srinivas Misra (2), Advocate appears for the O. P. 1. He points out that O. P. 1 has constructed a house on the land. O P. 2 has also recognised his possession by collecting rent from O. P. 1. The case before the Endowment Commissioner was initiated in case 925/70 for permission for permanent lease to O. P. No 1. Deity, O. P. 2 obviously was not in khas possession of the land on 18-3-74 and therefore deity cannot claim settlement under Section 6 or 7 of the O. E. A. Act. This is a homestead. Deity's homestead can only be the temple. On this ground also deity has no claim for settlement. 7. Deity, O. P. 2 obviously was not in khas possession of the land on 18-3-74 and therefore deity cannot claim settlement under Section 6 or 7 of the O. E. A. Act. This is a homestead. Deity's homestead can only be the temple. On this ground also deity has no claim for settlement. 7. Under Section 7(d) of the O. E. A Act waste land and tanks used for religious purposes can be settled with the deity. This is not the case here. 8. He also points out that the deity did not apply in time but 4 years after vesting. Lease case has been started. O. P. 1's right cannot be brushed aside in lease application of this nature. He relies on my order in another similar case O. E. A. R. C. 99/82 dated 22-2-83. 9. I agree with both the Counsels, Deity is not in khas possession of the land on the date of vesting. It is a homestead. Therefore, settlement of this land with the deity by the O. E. A. Collector is wrong. 10. I set aside the order of the O. E. A. Collector dated 18-4-81 settling this land with the deity and order that the land should be settled with the O. P. 1 as tenant under Government after collecting such fees as prescribed. Final Result : Allowed