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. 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 se