K. Ramalingam vs Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 1144
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 20051-20052 OF 2019)
K. RAMALINGAM AND OTHERS … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP.
BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
ALOK ARADHE, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The administration of property belonging to a
religious/charitable institution carries with it a duty of
preservation, not a power of unfettered disposition. The
question which arises for consideration in these appeals, stated
at its simplest, is whether the State Government, which the law
requires to act as a custodian of the properties belonging to
religious/charitable institutions, can itself become the recipient
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2026.10.16
17:44:51 IST
Reason:
of a gift of such property from a temporary trustee of a temple.
Page 1 of 31
1
3. These appeals emanate from the order dated 19.03.2019
2
passed by the High Court by which the writ petition preferred
by the eighth respondent (the ‘hereditary trustee’) has been
dismissed.
FACTS
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals, briefly stated, are
as follows. The land measuring 1 acre and 10 cents in Survey
Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi Village, Erode District,
Tamil Nadu (the ‘subject land’) belonged to Nagapalayam
Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple (the ‘Temple’) and was
administered by the temple trust.
5. On 30.08.2017, the Tehsildar issued a certificate stating that
the seventh respondent, one Mr. S. Bhoopathy, (the ‘temporary
trustee’) is the trustee of the Temple, the certificate being issued
for the purpose of registration of a deed in the Sub-Registrar’s
Office. By a Gift Deed of the same date, the temporary trustee
of the Temple, gifted the subject land to the Government of
1
W.P. No. 7075 of 2019 and W.M.P No. 7791 of 2019
2
High Court of Judicature at Madras
Page 2 of 31
Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector and the
Tehsildar, and was accepted by the Tehsildar. The stated
purpose of the same was for construction of a Taluk Office on
the subject land.
6. The Gift Deed was initially challenged by one M. Periyasamy and
three others in W.P. No. 26913 of 2017, and subsequently by
the hereditary trustee in W.P. No. 7075 of 2019, contending,
inter alia , that the alienation of trust property by way of gift
violated Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (the ‘1959 Act’), and was,
therefore, void and illegal.
7. The writ petition preferred by the villagers was dismissed as
withdrawn on 07.03.2018. In the writ petition filed by the
hereditary trustee, the High Court by an order dated
19.03.2019, held that the word ‘gift/settlement’ does not appear
in Section 34 of the 1959 Act and that alienation by way of gift
was, on that account, not prohibited. It was further held that
whether the subject land fell within the ambit of the 1959 Act
at all was a disputed question of fact unsuited to writ
Page 3 of 31
adjudication. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with
liberty to the hereditary trustee to file a suit for declaration of
title.
8. The hereditary trustee did not pursue the matter further. On
19.08.2019, the appellants, who are devotees of the Temple
were granted permission to file Special Leave Petitions against
the judgment of the High Court.
9. On 23.03.2022, during the pendency of these appeals, the
Principal Secretary to Government, Tourism, Culture and
Religious Endowments Department, Tamil Nadu, filed an
affidavit before this Court. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of that affidavit,
being of some significance, are extracted below:
“ 6. I most respectfully submit that since, the
property involved is an INAM Land granted
to the deity for its support and maintenance
under Inam Title Deed No. 388, only section
41 of the said Act would come into play
which prohibits gift/settlement of such lands
as null and void. Further I submit that
section 34(5) of the said Act also makes it
clear that Section 34 of the said Act would
not apply to inam lands. The reason for
prohibiting gift/settlement is to protect the
properties of the deities from being alienated
Page 4 of 31
permanently without any benefit accruing to
the deities.”
“ 7. I am advised to state that a meeting was
convened in this regard on 04-02-2022 by
the High Level Committee with the Chief
Secretary to Government as Chairperson
constituted by the Government to decide the
common view of the Government which will
be binding on all concerned Departments in
which this land issue was also considered
and the Revenue Department has also
accepted to cancel the gift settlement deed
executed in their favour and agreed to take
the land on lease/rent. The High Level
Committee also advised that a fair lease
amount to be fixed for the gifted land so that
it would be beneficial and in the interest of
the deities for whose benefit the said inam
was granted. Therefore, it was decided to fix
a fair rent as contemplated under Section 34-
A of the said
Act.………………………………Consequently,
fair lease rent to the property was fixed by
the Committee in existence, consisting of the
Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department, Erode,
the Fit Person acting in lieu of trustee of the
temple and the District Registrar, Erode. It is
submitted that the said Committee, after
considering all relevant issues and factors,
fixed the Fair lease rent as Rs. 13,235/- per
month and the lease period is fixed for three
years. It was also decided that on expiry of
the lease period, the lease would be
extended/renewed further, after fixing fresh
fair lease rent. This was considered as
beneficial to the deity of the Temple…..”
Page 5 of 31
The stand thus taken by the State leaves no doubt that the
Temple is the owner of the subject land.
SUBMISSIONS
10. Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the appellants,
submitted that the subject land is admittedly the property of the
Temple. He contended that a temporary trustee has no
authority to alienate it and that the gift, made without sanction
under Section 34 of the 1959 Act, is null and void; that its
registration is in any event barred by Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908, as applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu;
and that any rent payable in respect of the land ought to be
fixed with reference to its market value.
11. Mr. K.L. Janjani, learned counsel for the temporary trustee,
submitted that respondent no. 7/the temporary trustee is the
hereditary trustee of the Temple. He argued that the land was
transferred to the Government in public interest, for the
construction of a Taluk Office, pursuant to a unanimous
decision of the devotees and villagers. He submitted that since
Page 6 of 31
Section 34 of the 1959 Act does not in terms mention a gift, the
transaction is not rendered unlawful by that provision.
12. Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, learned Additional Advocate
General for the State and Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, learned
senior counsel for the Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Department, fairly did not dispute that the subject
land belongs to the Temple, or that the Gift Deed dated
30.08.2017 cannot be sustained. It was urged, however, that a
Taluk Office building has since been constructed on the land
out of public funds and serves a genuine public need.
13. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned amicus curiae , submitted that
any alienation of property belonging to a religious institution
must satisfy the restrictions in Section 34 of the 1959 Act,
including sanction of the Commissioner upon a finding that the
alienation is necessary or beneficial to the institution. He
contended that the State’s own affidavit admits that the land
belongs to the Temple, and there is no material on record to
show that either the process under Section 34 of the 1959 Act
or that under Section 41 of the 1959 Act has been followed.
Page 7 of 31
14. It was urged that a gift, being without consideration, cannot by
its very nature be said to be necessary or beneficial to the donor
institution, and that a gift of temple land to the Government
defeats the very object of the supervisory role assigned to the
Commissioner under Sections 23 and 34 of the 1959 Act. Even
other modes of alienation of temple property, it was urged, must
be approached with circumspection. Reliance in support of
these submissions was placed on certain decisions of this Court
3
and the High Court.
15. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the
record.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
16. It is convenient, at this stage, to set out the relevant statutory
provisions. Section 23 of the 1959 Act, which vests the
Commissioner with superintendence over temples and religious
endowments, reads:
3
Edukanti Kistamma and Ors. v. S. Venkatareddy, (2010) 1 SCC 756; A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin
Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482; T.R. Ramesh v. Commissioner and Ors. (W.A. No. 105 of 2025); Suo
Motu W.P. No. 574 of 2015 (Judgment dated 07.06.2021) and The Chief Secretary & Ors. v. The Director &
Ors., Rev. Appl. No. 169-170 of 2021
Page 8 of 31
“ 23. Power and duties of the Commissioner
in respect of temples and religious
endowments .—Subject to the provisions of
this Act, the administration of all temples
(including specific endowments attached
thereto) and all religious endowments shall be
subject to the general superintendence and
control of the Commissioner and such
superintendence and control shall include the
power to pass any orders which may be deemed
necessary to ensure that such temples and
endowments are properly administered and
that their income is duly appropriated for the
purposes for which they were founded or exist:
Provided that the Commissioner shall not pass
any order prejudicial to any temple or
endowment unless the trustees concerned had
a reasonable opportunity of making their
representations.”
17. The relevant extract of Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act,
which define the obligations of a trustee, read:
“ 27. Trustee bound to obey orders issued
under this Act. —The trustee of a religious
institution shall be bound to obey all lawful
orders issued under the provisions of this Act
by the Government, the Commissioner, the
Additional Commissioner, the Joint
Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or
the Assistant Commissioner.
28. Care required of trustee and his
powers .—(1) Subject to the provisions of the
Tamil Nadu Temple Entry Authorisation Act,
1947 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1947), the trustee of
every religious institution is bound to
Page 9 of 31
administer its affairs and to apply its funds and
properties in accordance with the terms of the
trust, the usage of the institution and all lawful
directions which a competent authority may
issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a
man of ordinary prudence would deal with
such affairs, funds and properties if they were
his own.
(2) A trustee shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act, be entitled to exercise all powers
incidental to the provident and beneficial
administration of the religious institution and
to do all things necessary for the due
performance of the duties imposed on him.…”
18. Section 34 of the 1959 Act, dealing with alienation of immovable
trust property, reads:
“ 34. Alienation of immovable trust
property .—(1) Any exchange, sale or mortgage
and any lease for a term exceeding five years of
any immovable property, belonging to, or given
or endowed for the purpose of, any religious
institution shall be null and void unless it is
sanctioned by the Commissioner as being
necessary or beneficial to the institution:
Provided that before such sanction is accorded,
the particulars relating to the proposed
transaction shall be published in such manner
as may be prescribed, inviting objections and
suggestions with respect thereto; and all
objections and suggestions received from the
trustee or other persons having interest shall be
duly considered by the Commissioner:
Page 10 of 31
Provided further that the Commissioner shall
not accord such sanction without the previous
approval of the Government.
Explanation.—Any lease of the property above
mentioned though for a term not exceeding five
years shall, if it contains a provision for renewal
for a further term (so as to exceed five years in
the aggregate), whether subject to any condition
or not, be deemed to be a lease for a period
exceeding five years.
(2) When according such sanction, the
Commissioner may impose such conditions and
give such directions as he may deem necessary
regarding the utilization of the amount raised by
the transaction, the investment thereof and, in
the case of a mortgage, regarding the discharge
of the same within a reasonable period.
(3) A copy of the order made by the
Commissioner under this section shall be
communicated to the Government and to the
trustee and shall be published in such manner
as may be prescribed.
(4) The trustee may, within three months from
the date of his receipt of a copy of the order, and
any person having interest may, within three
months from the date of the publication of the
order, appeal to the Court to modify the order or
set it aside. (4-A) The Government may issue
such directions to the Commissioner as in their
opinion are necessary, in respect of any
exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of any
immovable property, belonging to, or given or
endowed for the purpose of, any religious
institution and the Commissioner shall give
effect to all such directions.
Page 11 of 31
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply
to the inams referred to in section 41.”
19. Section 34-A (1) and (2) of the 1959 Act, providing for fixation
of lease rent, reads:
“34-A. Fixation of lease rent. —(1) The lease
rent payable for the lease of immovable property
belonging to, or given or endowed for the
purpose of, any religious institution, shall be
fixed by a Committee consisting of the Joint
Commissioner, the Executive Officer or the
Trustee or the Chairman of the Board of
Trustees, as the case may be, of the religious
institution and the District Registrar of the
Registration Department in the district
concerned, taking into account the prevailing
market rental value and the guidelines, as may
be prescribed, and such lease rent shall be
refixed in the like manner once in three years by
the said Committee.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-
section, ‘prevailing market rental value’ means
the amount of rent paid for similar types of
properties situated in the locality where the
immovable property of the religious institution
is situated.
(2) The Executive Officer or the Trustee or the
Chairman of the Board of Trustees, as the case
may be, of the religious institution concerned,
shall pass an order fixing the lease rent and
intimate the same to the lessee specifying a time
within which such lease rent shall be paid.…”
Page 12 of 31
20. Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act, dealing with inams granted for
the support or maintenance of a religious institution, reads:
“ 41. Resumption and re-grant of inam granted
for performance of any charity or service.— (1)
Any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any
lease for a term exceeding five years of the whole
or any portion of any inam granted for the
support or maintenance of a religious institution
or for the performance of a charity or service
connected therewith or of any other religious
charity and made, confirmed or recognized by the
Government shall be null and void:
Provided that any transaction of the nature
aforesaid (not being a gift) may be sanctioned by
the Government as being necessary or beneficial
to the institution.…”
21. Section 41(2) of the 1959 Act empowers the Collector to resume
an inam where the holder or the trustee has made an exchange,
gift, sale or mortgage of it, clause (f) thereof directing that the
inam so resumed be re-granted as an endowment to the
religious institution concerned.
22. Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as substituted in its
application to the State of Tamil Nadu, in relevant part, reads:
“ 22-A. Refusal to register certain
documents .—Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, the registering officer
Page 13 of 31
shall refuse to register any of the following
documents, namely:— (1) instrument relating
to the transfer of immovable properties by way
of sale, gift, mortgage, exchange or lease,— …
(ii) belonging to, or given or endowed for the
purpose of, any religious institution to which
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 is
applicable; … unless a sanction in this regard
issued by the competent authority as provided
under the relevant Act or, in the absence of any
such authority, an authority so authorized by
the State Government for this purpose, is
produced before the registering officer;”
ANALYSIS
NATURE OF TEMPLE PROPERTY AND THE STATE’S ROLE
AS CUSTODIAN
23. Before turning to the rival contentions, it is useful to recall why
property belonging to religious institutions is treated differently
from ordinary property. Our country’s religious institutions are
not merely places of worship, they are, in law and, in fact,
repositories of considerable wealth, land, buildings, jewellery
and specie, accumulated over centuries through the offerings of
ordinary devotees and the endowments of kings and commoners
alike, given in the faith that what was dedicated to the deity
would remain dedicated to the deity in perpetuity. That wealth,
once given, ceases to belong to the donor, to the priest, to the
Page 14 of 31
trustee, or to the State; it vests in the deity, and every hand
through which it subsequently passes holds it only in trust for
the deity and, through the deity, for the community of
worshippers it was meant to serve. Every custodian holds it only
in trust for the deity and the worshippers it serves.
24. A seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner, Hindu
Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra
4
Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt , held that while Articles
25 and 26 of the Constitution protect religious belief and
practice, they do not immunise the secular and economic
administration of religious property from regulation by law. The
same view was reaffirmed in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v.
5
State of Andhra Pradesh , where the administration of temple
funds and offices was held to be a secular function distinct from
the freedom of worship itself.
25. It is against this backdrop that Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A
and 41 of the 1959 Act, extracted above, must be read. The
object of the said provisions is to shield temple property from
4
(1954) 1 SCC 412
5
(1996) 9 SCC 548
Page 15 of 31
dissipation, whether at the hands of an improvident trustee or,
as the facts of this case illustrate, an overreaching arm of the
State itself; a custodian does not cease to be bound by the terms
of its custodianship merely because it is also the sovereign.
POSITION OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO ALIENATION OF
PROPERTIES BELONGING TO RELIGIOUS OR CHARITABLE
TRUSTS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
26. Even in other countries, laws similarly withhold religious or
charitable trust land from free disposal.
26.1 In England and Wales, under Section 117 of the Charities Act
6
2011 , no land held by or in trust for a charity may be disposed
of without an order of the court or the Charity Commission, or
compliance with a prescribed valuation procedure.
26.2 In the United States, the Attorney General enforces charitable
trusts as parens patriae : New York's Religious Corporations Law
7
§12 requires leave of court or the Attorney General's approval
6
117 . Restrictions on dispositions of land: general
(1) No land held by or in trust for a charity is to be conveyed, transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of
without an order of—
(a)the court, or
(b)the Commission.
But this is subject to the following provisions of this section, sections 119 to 121 (further provisions about
restrictions on dispositions) and section 127 (release of charity rent charges).
7
§ 12. Sale, mortgage and lease of real property of religious corporations. 1. A religious corporation shall not
sell, mortgage or lease for a term exceeding five years any of its real property without applying for and obtaining
Page 16 of 31
before a religious corporation sells, mortgages or leases its real
property.
26.3 In Canada, Ontario's Religious Organizations' Lands Act,
8
R.S.O. 1990, c. R.23, Section 12(1) lets trustees sell or
exchange land only on terms the organization approves by
resolution, and only after the organization has resolved that the
9
land is no longer needed for its purposes. Section 9 restricts
mortgages to debts contracted for acquiring or improving the
land or its buildings. Where the organization has ceased to
exist, or the required authorization cannot be obtained, section
10
23 lets the trustees, an interested person or the Public
leave of the court or the attorney general therefor pursuant to section five hundred eleven of the not-for-profit
corporation law as that section is modified by paragraph (d-1) of subdivision one of section two-b of this
chapter or section five hundred eleven-a of the not-for-profit corporation law, except that a religious
corporation may execute a purchase money mortgage or a purchase money security agreement creating a
security interest in personal property purchased by it without obtaining leave of the court therefor.
8
12 (1) The trustees of a religious organization may, upon such terms and conditions as the organization may
by resolution approve, sell or exchange at any time land held by them if the organization has by resolution
determined that the land is no longer necessary for its purposes.
9
9 (1) The trustees of a religious organization may secure any debt contracted for the acquisition or
improvement of land under this Act, or for the building, repairing, extending or improving of any buildings
thereon, by a mortgage or charge on all or any part of the land of the organization.
10
23 (1) Where a religious organization has ceased to exist, or where the authorization required under section
6 cannot be obtained for any reason other than a dispute among the members of the organization concerning
the organization’s property, the persons in whom the land of the organization is vested as trustees or, upon
their failure to do so or where no trustees remain in office, any interested person or the Public Guardian and
Trustee may apply to the Superior Court of Justice for directions, and the court may authorize the trustees or
may appoint and authorize any other person to exercise any of the powers conferred by this Act. R.S.O. 1990,
c. R.23, s. 23 (1); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1); 2009, c. 33, Sched. 2, s. 65 (3).
23(2) Upon such an application, the court may direct that the land or any part thereof be disposed of or that it
or the proceeds of sale thereof be distributed in such manner as it considers proper, and the court may make
such vesting orders as are expedient in the circumstances.
Page 17 of 31
Guardian and Trustee apply to the Superior Court of Justice for
directions.
27. These regimes treat the State as a guardian that must consent
before religious property is dealt with. The property dedicated to
a deity or a charitable purpose has no natural guardian of its
own, and the law supplies one through sanction and external
oversight rather than private discretion.
FINDINGS
A. THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBJECT LAND AND THE
VALIDITY OF THE GIFT
28. The character of the subject land in the instant case must first
be determined, for the applicability of Section 34 or Section 41
of the 1959 Act turns upon it. The affidavit dated 23.03.2022,
extracted in paragraph 9 above, states in express terms that the
subject land is an inam land granted to the deity for its support
and maintenance under Inam Title Deed No. 388. Section 34(5)
of the 1959 Act expressly excludes from the operation of Section
34 “the inams referred to in section 41”. It follows that Section
41 of the 1959 Act, and not Section 34, governs the transaction
impugned in these appeals.
Page 18 of 31
29. This is not a distinction without a difference; it carries decisive
consequence for a transaction of gift. Section 34(1) of the 1959
Act empowers the Commissioner to sanction “any exchange,
sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years”
as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. Section 41(1)
of the 1959 Act, while similarly declaring “any exchange, gift,
sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years”
of an inam property to be null and void, permits the Government
to sanction only “any transaction of the nature aforesaid (not
being a gift)”.
30. The Legislature has thus consciously withheld from a gift of an
inam property, the very possibility of subsequent validation, by
the Commissioner or the Government alike. A gift of an inam
property dedicated to the support of a deity is, in consequence,
void ab initio and no sanction, however solemnly accorded,
could have breathed life into it.
31. Tested on this anvil, the Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017, executed
by temporary trustee in favour of the Government of Tamil
Nadu, is null and void under Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act. It
Page 19 of 31
was equally incapable of valid registration, having regard to
Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable to the
State of Tamil Nadu, since no sanction “issued by the competent
authority as provided under the relevant Act” preceded its
registration, and, being a gift of an inam property, no such
sanction could at all have been granted. The fact that the
document nonetheless came to be registered does not cure this
infirmity; registration under one statute cannot validate what
another statute, governing the very property in question,
declares void.
32. We may add, for completeness, that even upon the alternative
hypothesis, contrary to the Government’s own affidavit, that the
subject land fell within the general class of properties governed
by Section 34 of the 1959 Act rather than Section 41, the
outcome would be no different. It is not in dispute that no
sanction of the Commissioner, preceded by the publication and
invitation of objections contemplated by the first proviso to
Section 34(1) of the 1959 Act, and no prior approval of the
Government under the second proviso, was obtained before
Page 20 of 31
30.08.2017. The gift on this hypothesis too, would be null and
void for want of sanction.
33. We are unable to accept the submission that a temporary
trustee’s authority over trust property is unconstrained.
Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act oblige every trustee,
permanent or temporary, to administer the institution’s
properties “as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would
deal with such affairs, funds and properties if they were his
own”, and to obey all lawful orders issued under the Act. A gift,
being a transfer without consideration, cannot by its very
nature be characterised as an act of ordinary prudence in the
management of another’s property. It confers no corresponding
benefit on the donor institution and does not fit in with the
fiduciary character of the office of trustee. A gift of temple
property to the Government, being wholly gratuitous, militates
against the very object of the supervisory role assigned to the
Commissioner under Sections 23 and 34 of the 1959 Act.
34. The submission that the Revenue Department was, in these
circumstances, entitled to receive and hold the subject land by
Page 21 of 31
way of gift proceeds upon a misconception. The State, acting
through the Commissioner and other functionaries under the
1959 Act, is a custodian and regulator of temple properties, not
their owner. An acceptance of a gift of temple land by a Revenue
functionary, however laudable the public purpose it is intended
to serve, offends the object of the 1959 Act. A temple property
is held for the deity and not for gratuitous disposal by whoever
happens to hold the office of trustee, however well-intentioned.
B. CONDUCT OF THE STATE
35. We are constrained to note that the State did not change its
stand on its own initiative. The deed was executed and
registered on 30.08.2017. In W.P. No. 26913 of 2017, the
Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, had asserted on affidavit that the
property belongs to the deity and that the executant had no
authority to convey it. Even so, the Revenue Department
mutated the lands in the name of the Taluk Office, reclassified
them as “Sarkar Poramboke” and began construction. Before
the High Court, the State defended the transaction and
Page 22 of 31
succeeded. Even after this Court issued notice on 19.08.2019,
the State persisted in that defence. In the counter affidavit dated
23.10.2019, it maintained that the lands had vested absolutely
in the Government and would “not belong to any others or any
religious institutions”. It reiterated that stand in I.A. No. 14519
of 2021, seeking vacation of the order of status quo .
36. The State abandoned the gift only after this Court, by its order
dated 21.02.2022, required the Secretary in charge of
Endowments to clarify on affidavit whether a trustee can gift
away temple property. It was then that the State accepted that
the lands belong to the Temple, that a gift of such lands is
prohibited by Section 41 of the 1959 Act, and that the Revenue
Department could hold them only as a lessee. A department of
the State, which is the statutory custodian of temple properties,
ought to have recognised this position at the threshold. It
should not have taken a challenge before this Court, and the
probing of the issue by this Court, to bring it about. The State’s
belated concession, cannot obscure the fact that for over four
years the property of the Temple was treated as that of the
Page 23 of 31
Government on the strength of a deed which, by the State’s own
admission, had no sanction in law.
C. DETERMINATION OF FAIR RENT
37. It is noteworthy that the Revenue Department, by using public
funds, has already constructed a Taluk Office upon the land
which serves the administrative needs of the Taluk. We are,
therefore, not inclined to set aside the lease granted in favour of
the State Government. However, the issue with regard to the
quantum of fair lease rent needs to be dealt with. The Fair Rent
Committee, by its decision dated 09.02.2022, fixed the rent at
Rs. 13,235/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Thirty
Five only) per month. The State Government has issued G.O.
(MS) No. 200 dated 02.11.2018 under which, lands of religious
institutions which are required to be made over to the
Government are to be valued at 225% of the guideline value or
the market value whichever is higher. The Collector in his
communication dated 22.05.2019, while referring to the
aforesaid G.O. had proposed that the land belonging to the
Trust should be valued in terms of the aforesaid G.O.(MS). We
Page 24 of 31
are conscious of the fact that the State Government has
constructed the building. However, since the trust has been
wrongfully deprived of use of its property, with a view to
ascertain the fair rent, we apply the formula evolved by the Fair
Rent Committee.
38. The material on record shows that according to Registration
Department, in respect of an adjoining developed land, the
market value was indicated at Rs. 167/- (Rupees One Hundred
Sixty Seven only) per square feet. To ascertain the fair rent, we
take the market value of the subject land at Rs. 167/- (Rupees
One Hundred Sixty Seven only) per square feet. Applying 225%
thereof as per the aforesaid G.O., the value works out to
Rs. 375.75 (Rupees Three Hundred Seventy Five and Seventy
Five Paise only) per square feet, and for the subject land
admeasuring 47,916 square feet, to Rs. 1,80,04,437/- (Rupees
One Crore Eighty Lakh Four Thousand Four Hundred Thirty
Seven only). As per the formula adopted by the Fair Rent
Committee, the value of the building has to be added to this
market value. From a perusal of the Fair Rent Fixation
Page 25 of 31
Statement, it is evident that the depreciated value of the
building is Rs.1,24,33,603/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Four
Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Six Hundred Three only). Thus,
the total value comes to Rs.3,04,38,040/- (Rupees Three Crore
Four Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Forty only). As per the
formula adopted by the Fair Rent Committee, the rent has to be
fixed at the rate of 0.1% of the total value. Thus, the fair rent
comes to Rs. 30,438/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Four Hundred
Thirty Eight only). We, therefore, enhance the rent and round it
off to Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand only) per
month which shall be payable with effect from 08.03.2019, that
is, the date on which the subject land was handed over for
construction.
39. We make it clear that the continuation of this lease is not to be
read as conferring upon the Revenue Department any degree of
unilateral control over its terms. The trust, acting through its
trustee or, in the absence of a duly constituted Board of
Trustees, the Fit Person appointed under the 1959 Act, in
consultation with the Committee empanelled for the purpose,
Page 26 of 31
shall retain the power to determine, and, as occasion requires,
to revise, the terms and conditions of the lease in favour of the
Government, including the quantum of rent, on each occasion
of renewal, strictly having regard to the prevailing market rental
value and the best interests of the institution. An extension or
renewal of the lease upon expiry of its current term shall be
granted only upon fresh determination of fair rent by the
Committee, and not as a matter of course.
DIRECTIONS
40. We consider it necessary, in view of what has transpired in this
case, where a gift of the temple’s inam property was executed
and registered without any authority of law, and was allowed to
stand until the State conceded before this Court in 2022, to
issue following directions henceforth:
(i) the authorities of the State Government and the Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Department
shall strictly comply with the procedure prescribed
under Sections 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act, and
the Rules framed thereunder, before effecting or
Page 27 of 31
sanctioning any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of
property belonging to, or given or endowed for the
purpose of, any religious institution.
(ii) Every decision touching the properties of a
religious/charitable institution must be guided solely
by the best interest and benefit of the trust, and never
by the administrative convenience of the Government.
(iii) The State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp, nor
permit any of its officers to usurp, the property of the
religious/charitable institutions it is charged to protect;
a transaction that offends this principle, whatever its
label or ostensible public purpose, is liable to be struck
down.
CONCLUSION
41. In the result, the judgment and order dated 19.03.2019 passed
by the High Court is set aside. It is declared and directed that:
(i) The subject land bearing Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and
41/2 of Kodumudi Village, Erode District, is an inam
property belonging to and vested in the Temple;
Page 28 of 31
(ii) The Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 executed in favour of the
Government of Tamil Nadu, is declared null and void
under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and its
registration, being contrary to Section 22-A of the
Registration Act, 1908, as applicable to the State of Tamil
Nadu, is of no legal effect;
(iii) The lease in favour of the Government shall not be
annulled. If the lease has expired, it shall be renewed. In
either event, the lease rent shall stand enhanced to
Rs. 31,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Thousand only) per
month with effect from 08.03.2019, the date on which the
subject land was handed over for construction. The rent
shall be re-fixed once in three years under Section 34-A of
the 1959 Act, but not below that amount. The period of the
lease, its renewal and the remaining terms shall be
determined by the trust of the Temple, in accordance with
the 1959 Act, with the benefit of the Temple as the
paramount consideration.
Page 29 of 31
(iv) The arrears of rent from 08.03.2019 till date, after
adjusting any amount already paid, shall be paid by the
State to the Temple within three months from today.
(v) The State was under a statutory obligation to act as
custodian of the subject land, however, the State not only
accepted the gift of temple property but also continued to
defend it before the High Court and before this Court, until
the Chief Secretary of Endowments was called upon to
place his stand on affidavit. Therefore, we deem it
appropriate to direct the State to pay costs quantified at
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) within a period of
eight weeks to the Temple.
(vi) The respondent-authorities shall, henceforth, strictly
comply with the procedure prescribed under Sections 34,
34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act, as directed in paragraph 40
above.
42. We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance
rendered by Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned amicus curiae, and
by learned counsel for the parties.
Page 30 of 31
43. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
......................................................J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
......................................................J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 16, 2026
Page 31 of 31