The Supreme Court has held that temple inam land cannot be gifted to the State Government, even for a public purpose, and that such a transfer is void from its inception under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.
Setting aside a Madras High Court judgment, the bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe declared invalid a gift deed through which a temporary trustee transferred 1 acre and 10 cents of temple land to the Tamil Nadu Government for constructing a Taluk Office. It emphasised that the State’s responsibility to protect religious properties does not permit it to become their owner through an unlawful gift.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments – September 2026
A Bench imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on the State, payable to the temple, for accepting the gift and continuing to defend it in judicial proceedings.
However, considering that a Taluk Office had already been constructed using public funds and was serving an administrative need, the Court preserved the lease arrangement. It enhanced the monthly rent from ₹13,235 to ₹31,000, retrospectively from March 8, 2019, and directed payment of the outstanding arrears within three months.
The dispute concerned land in Survey at Kodumudi Village in Erode District, belonging to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple.
On August 30, 2017, the Tehsildar issued a certificate identifying S. Bhoopathy as the temple’s trustee for the purpose of registering a deed. On the same day, Bhoopathy, described in the judgment as the temporary trustee, executed a gift deed transferring the land to the Tamil Nadu Government, represented by the District Collector and the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar accepted the gift for construction of a Taluk Office.
An initial challenge by villagers was dismissed as withdrawn in March 2018. A subsequent writ petition filed by the hereditary trustee was dismissed by the Madras High Court on March 19, 2019.
The High Court reasoned that Section 34 of the 1959 Act did not expressly mention a gift or settlement and, therefore, did not prohibit the transaction on that account. It also considered the applicability of the Act to the land a disputed factual question and granted liberty to seek a declaration of title through a civil suit.
The hereditary trustee did not pursue the challenge further. Temple devotees subsequently obtained permission to approach the Supreme Court.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, the State filed an affidavit dated March 23, 2022, acknowledging that the property was inam land granted to the deity for its support and maintenance under Inam Title Deed No. 388.
The affidavit accepted that Section 41 prohibited the gift of such land and that Section 34 did not apply to the inams covered by Section 41.
The Government also informed the Court that a high-level committee had considered the issue and that the Revenue Department had agreed to cancel the gift settlement deed and occupy the land on lease. A committee subsequently fixed rent at ₹13,235 per month for a three-year period, with fresh rent to be determined upon renewal.
The Supreme Court held that this affidavit left no doubt about the temple’s ownership of the property.
The Court identified the distinction between Sections 34 and 41 as decisive.
Section 34 provides a mechanism for sanctioning specified transactions involving religious institution property when they are necessary or beneficial to the institution. However, Section 34(5) expressly excludes the inams referred to in Section 41.
Section 41(1) declares an exchange, gift, sale, mortgage or lease exceeding five years of the specified inam property null and void, subject to its statutory framework. While the Government may sanction certain transactions, the provision expressly excludes a gift from that possibility.
The Bench held that the legislature had consciously denied any route for validating a gift of such property.
“A gift of an inam property dedicated to the support of a deity is, in consequence, void ab initio,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the August 30, 2017 gift deed was null and void under Section 41(1). The Court further held that its registration violated Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu. Registration could not give legal validity to a transaction prohibited by the statute governing the property.
The Bench added that even if Section 34 had applied, the transaction would still fail because the required sanction and procedural safeguards had not been followed.
Rejecting the argument that the trustee could transfer the property for a public purpose, the Court stressed the fiduciary obligations attached to the office.
Sections 27 and 28 require trustees, whether permanent or temporary, to administer institutional property prudently and comply with lawful directions under the Act.
The Court reasoned that a gratuitous transfer of another’s property, without a corresponding benefit to the religious institution, was incompatible with those duties.
The claim that devotees and villagers had unanimously supported the transfer for a Taluk Office did not overcome the statutory restrictions.
The Bench emphasised that temple property is held for the deity. The intentions of the trustee or the public usefulness of the proposed project could not authorise its free disposal.
The Supreme Court criticised the State’s handling of the transaction and its prolonged defence of the gift.
In the earlier proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had already asserted that the property belonged to the deity and that the person executing the deed lacked authority to transfer it.
Despite this, the Revenue Department mutated the land in the name of the Taluk Office, reclassified it as “Sarkar Poramboke” and commenced construction.
The State defended the transfer before the High Court and continued doing so before the Supreme Court. In a counter affidavit filed in October 2019, it maintained that the land had vested absolutely in the Government and no longer belonged to any religious institution.
The Court noted that the State changed its position only after being directed in February 2022 to clarify whether a trustee could gift temple property.
The Bench held that the Government ought to have recognised the legal position at the outset. Its eventual concession did not erase the fact that temple property had been treated as government property for over four years on the basis of an unlawful deed.
While invalidating the gift, the Court declined to annul the lease because the Taluk Office had already been constructed and was serving the administrative needs of the area.
It nevertheless found that the rent required revision.
For its calculation, the Court adopted a market value of ₹167 per square foot, based on material concerning adjoining developed land. Applying the 225% valuation factor under the relevant government order produced a value of ₹375.75 per square foot.
For the 47,916-square-foot property, the resulting land value was ₹1,80,04,437. Following the Fair Rent Committee’s formula, the Court added the depreciated building value of ₹1,24,33,603, producing a total valuation of ₹3,04,38,040.
At 0.1% of that total, the monthly rent worked out to approximately ₹30,438. The Court rounded it to ₹31,000 per month, effective from March 8, 2019, when the land was handed over for construction.
It directed the State to pay the arrears, after adjusting amounts already paid, within three months of the judgment.
The Court clarified that preserving the lease did not give the Revenue Department unilateral control over its terms.
The temple trust, acting through its trustee or the appointed Fit Person where there is no duly constituted Board of Trustees, must determine the lease terms in accordance with the Act and with the temple’s benefit as the paramount consideration.
The rent must be re-fixed once every three years under Section 34-A and cannot fall below ₹31,000 per month. Future renewals require a fresh determination of fair rent, taking account of prevailing market rental value and the institution’s interests.
The operative directions also require renewal if the existing lease has expired.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s March 19, 2019 judgment and declared that the land belonged to and vested in the temple.
It declared the gift deed null and void and its registration legally ineffective. The State was directed to pay ₹1 lakh in costs to the temple within eight weeks.
The Court further directed the State Government and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department to strictly follow Sections 34, 34-A and 41, along with the applicable rules, when dealing with religious institution property.
Decisions affecting such property must be guided by the institution’s interests and benefit, rather than the Government’s administrative convenience. The State cannot use its custodial role to appropriate the very property it is required to protect.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
