poramboke, it cannot be treated as equal to 'temple site'. The word 'temple site' has to be assigned only the restricted meaning, which is also the nature meaning i.e. the site on which the temple or its appurtenances are situated and the actual premises of the temple. It will not include other properties belonging to the temple. If the legislature had intended to give a wider meaning and application and intended to include the lands or properties belonging to the temple, then the legislature could have as well used the expression 'temple lands' or 'temple properties'. The expression 'temple poramboke' can only signify one of the species of poramboke lands. It is certainly a property which is under the control of the Government and amenable to the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. Therefore, the petitioner first failed to establish his right over the subject property. Secondly, the subject property is only 'temple poramboke' and it is not belonging to the Bajanai koil.
