JUDGMENT A.S. NAIDU, J. : The petitioners claimed to be the erst¬while Marfatdars of the Deity, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakat¬pur in the district of Puri. The said institution has been de¬clared to be a Public Religious Endowment under the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1972, hereinafter to be called as “OHRE Act”. In consonance with the provisions of the said Act, a Committee of Management was constituted to manage the institution and its properties. Admittedly, the petitioners do not claim to be the members of the Managing Committee, but ac¬cording to them before the institution was declared as a public religious endowment, their ancestors were acting as the Marfat¬dars of the Deity. The controversy in this writ petition is with regard to settlement of the lands made by the O.E.A. Collector, Kakatpur in Bebandobasta (O.E.A.) Case No.1833 of 2001. By the said order, the disputed lands have been settled in favour of the Deity represented through it’s Trust Board. The disputed lands over which the petitioners put-forth their claim appertains to Plot No.2013 of Khata No.857, measuring an area of Ac.0.11 deci¬mals situated in Mouza Kakatpur. The nomenclature of the said lands was ‘Gharabari’. According to the petitioners, their ances¬tors had purchased the land in the name of the Deity and were in possession thereof in lieu of performing “Seva Puja”. They were also managing the affairs of the Deity, which was a private trust then. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that though the lands in question were purchased by their ances¬tors, who were Sevayat Marfatdars, after vesting of the estate under the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, the same had been wrongly settled in favour of the Deity. The ancestors of the petitioners their and after them, the petitioners, being the defacto owners of the lands, the same should have been settled in their favour and not in favour of the Deity, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur. 2. Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the peti¬tioners in course of hearing submitted, rather emphatically, that the lands having been purchased from out of the income of the ancestors of the petitioners, who were Marfatdars and were manag¬ing the affairs of the Deity, after vesting of the estate under the O.E.A. Act, the authorities should have settled the lands in favour of the petitioners. Further, Mr. Further, Mr. Chatterji submitted that in consonance with the provisions of the O.E.A. Act, as no peti¬tion under Sections 6 & 7 having been filed by the Trust Board with a prayer to settle the lands, the authorities acted illegal¬ly in settling the same in favour of the Deity under the lease principle. 3. All these submissions are strongly repudiated by learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. According to him, in consonance with the O.E.A. Act, the estate of the Deity vested with the State free from all encumbrances. After such vesting, whatever right any person had over the lands belonging to the Deity intermediary, i.e., Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur, lost their right, title and interest over the said lands. It is further submitted that as no petitions had been filed under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A Act by the Managing Committee constituted under the O.H.R.E. Act, the land stood recorded under bebandobasti khata. Subsequently, on enquiry, it was found that the lands stood recorded in the name of the Deity, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur. Consequently, Bebandobasta (O.E.A.) Case No.1833 of 2001 was registered, notices were issued and objections were called for and after following all parapher¬nalia, the lands were settled in favour of the Deity. Thus, no infirmity or illegality has been committed. 4. To countenance the submissions made, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as the Deity was not in khas possession of the lands and the petitioners were possess¬ing the lands as Marfatdars, the authorities acted illegally in settling the same in its favour. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dayanidhi Naik v. Mangala Thakurani of Kakatpur and another (M.A. No.180 of 1982 disposed of on 23.12.1983) and submitted that following the ratio of the said judgment, the lands should have been settled in favour of the petitioners, who were not only in possession of the lands but also were the Marfatdars of the Deity before it was declared to be a religious endowment. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, pe¬rused the pleadings and the documents annexed meticulously. Fact remains, the institution, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatput is a public religious endowment governed under the provisions of the O.H.R.E. Act and was an ex-estate. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length, pe¬rused the pleadings and the documents annexed meticulously. Fact remains, the institution, Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatput is a public religious endowment governed under the provisions of the O.H.R.E. Act and was an ex-estate. After abolition of the estate in consonance with the O.E.A. Act, the rights of the persons got abolished and the lands became that of the Government. The provi¬sions of the O.E.A. Act further stipulates that after vesting the intermediary was required to file petitions under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act for settlement of the land in its favour. The Act also provides that the tenancy right of the persons, who claimed to be the tenants under the intermediary prior to vesting do not vest and such tenants, who were in physical possession of the lands, were deemed to be tenants under the State. That apart, those persons, who were rendering personal service to the inter¬mediary and in lieu thereof were in possession of the lands were entitled to settlement of the lands in their favour bereft of the service. In the case of Dayanidhi Naik and others the petitioners of the said case were performing “Kahali Seva” and in lieu of performing such seva, they were in possession of certain lands belonging to the Deity-Intermediary. Thus, after vesting of the estate under the O.E.A. Act, they were entitled for settlement of the lands bereft of performing seva puja. The rato of the said case, however, is not applicable to the case in hand. Fact re¬mains, the petitioners are not the tenants under the Deity and thus, they cannot claim for deemed settlement. They also do not claim to have rendered personal service to the ex-intermediary, i.e., Sri Mangala Thakurani Bije, Kakatpur, thus, they were also not entitled to any settlement of lands. They claim to be the Marfatdars of the Deity and defacto owners of the lands on that capacity. Fact remains, the lands were recorded in the name of the Deity and the Deity is the absolute owner thereof. It is well known that the Deity is a perpetual minor and it has to be repre¬sented through some human agency. According to the petitioners, their ancestors were Marfatdards and were managing the affairs of the Deity and on that capacity they were in possession of the lands. It is well known that the Deity is a perpetual minor and it has to be repre¬sented through some human agency. According to the petitioners, their ancestors were Marfatdards and were managing the affairs of the Deity and on that capacity they were in possession of the lands. After the institution was declared as a public religious endowment and a Trust Board was framed, the petitioners lost their right to manage the affairs of the Deity and/or remain in possession of the lands any more. It appears that after vesting of the estate, petitions under Sections 6 and 7 were not filed by the Trust Board, but then, non-filing of petitions would not take away the right of the Deity as it is a perpetual minor. It is a fact that many intermediaries failed to file petitions under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act claiming settlement of the lands and continued to remain in possession of the lands and enjoy the usufructs. Consequently, the State Government was prevented from collecting land revenue from those lands and the lands were recorded under the bebandobasti status. After coming to know about huge loss of land revenue, the Government took a decision and issued circular authorizing the Tahasildars, who are designated as Collectors under the OEA Act to initiate suo motu proceedings and settle the lands in favour of the ex-intermedi¬ary, so that revenue can be collected. In consonance with the said circular, it appears, the Tahasildar, Kakatpur initiated Bebandobasti (O.E.A.) Case No.1833 of 2001 and after following paraphernalia, settled the lands in favour of the Deity. Admit¬tedly, the lands were purchased in the name of the Deity, stood recorded in the name of the Deity in sabik R.O.R. and had valid right, title and interest over the same before vesting of the estate. All these aspects are well discussed by the O.E.A. Col¬lector in his order. 6. After going through the impugned order, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality. In view of the fact that the lands belong to the Deity and not to the Marfatdar and the af¬fairs of the Deity is managed by the Board of Trustees framed under the O.H.R.E. Act, the authorities have not committed any illegality or irregularity in settling the lands in favour of the Deity, represented through the Trust Board. 7. In view of the fact that the lands belong to the Deity and not to the Marfatdar and the af¬fairs of the Deity is managed by the Board of Trustees framed under the O.H.R.E. Act, the authorities have not committed any illegality or irregularity in settling the lands in favour of the Deity, represented through the Trust Board. 7. In view of the discussions made above, I am not in¬clined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.