Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

The petitioner seeks to assail the proceedings of the District Collector, Kancheepuram/respondent No.1, dated 19.01.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and others filed under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") qua the action being taken for removal of the encroachments in S.No.219/4 being the temple poramboke land.

2. The position which emerges from the impugned order is that the encroachments are by the following persons:-

Sl. No.	Survey No.	Classification	Name of the Encroachments	Condition of the Encroachment	Extent of Encroachment in the Metric Measurement in Hectare
1.	219/1 219/4	Pond Temple Poramboke	Selvam S/o. Veerasamy	Cement Roof and Cement Sheet House	0.02.5
2.	219/1 219/4	Pond Temple Poramboke	Logu S/o. Veerasamy	Cement Roofed House	0.02.0
3.	219/1	Pond Poramboke	Sivamani S/o. Veerasamy small Water Tank	Roof House	0.01.5
4.	219/4	Temple Poramboke	Veerasamy S/o. Duraisamy	Roof House	0.01.5
5.	219/4	Temple Poramboke	Umapathi S/o. Veerasamy	Roof House Thatched Roof	0.03.5
6.	219/4	Temple Poramboke	Adi-Diravidar Welfare Kinder Garden Elementary School, Kitchen (2) Panchayat High Drinking Water Tap and Ettiyamman Temple	Cement Roofed Building	0.12.0
7.	219/4	Temple Poramboke	Sambath Reddiyar S/o. Venkatesan	Tiled Roof	0.01.0
8.	219/4	Temple Poramboke	Padmanabhan S/o. Rangasamy	Tiled Roof	0.01.0
9.	219/4	Temple Poramboke	Perumal S/o. Mariyappan	Thatched Roof	0.01.0
10.	219/1	Tank Poramboke	Harikrishnan S/o. Koothan	Cement Roofed Toilet	0.00.5
11.	219/1	Tank Poramboke	Nagammal W/o. Late Chandran	Sheep Fence at present not in use	0.01.0
12.	219/1	Panchayat High Level Roof Drinking Water Tank and Well			0.05.0

3. The petitioner is at Serial No.9.

4. The order goes on to record that except Serial Nos.6, 11 and 12, the remaining 9 persons have actually made encroachments. Out of the remaining 9 persons, 5 were issued "B" Memos, while 4 were not issued "B" Memos, which includes the petitioner. Consequently, an eviction order has been issued.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties. Mr. V.B.R. Menon, Advocate, who is present in Court, has also assisted us in this matter to determine the larger context.

6. The first thing which needs to be emphasized is that issuance of "B" Memo is only the recognition of the existence of the encroachment and penalty imposed for the same. It does not confer any patta right. Thus, it will be an encroachment. If "B" Memo has not been issued, it implies that penalty has not been paid.

7. There can be no dispute that any encroachment on the pond would be completely impermissible and not capable of any regularization in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in T.K. Shanmugam, Secretary, C.P.I.(M), North Chennai District Committee, 52, Cooks Road, Perambur, Chennai-11 v. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and others, reported in 2015-5-L.W. 397. That leaves us with the temple poramboke land.

8. In the course of examining as to what is the temple poramboke land, it emerges that the land is earmarked for the temple to carry out various functions and temple festivals. As to how a temple poramboke land can be utilized is part of Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Orders – 26. In respect of the same, the relevant Government Orders are G.O. Ms. No.3333, Revenue, dated 25.08.1960 and G.O. Ms. No.3069, Revenue, dated 22.07.1961 and the Board Proceedings being B.P. Ms. No.135, dated 02.02.1961.

9. Rule 13 of the Revenue Standing Orders – 26, reads as under:-

"13. Temple Poramboke.- In order to safeguard the owner