K. RAMALINGAM AND OTHERS

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — Ss. 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A and 41 — Registration Act, 1908 (as applicable to Tamil Nadu) — S. 22-A — Temple property — Inam land granted to deity — Gift by temporary trustee to State Government for construction of Taluk Office — Validity — S. 34(5) excludes inams referred to in S. 41 — S. 41(1) declares gift of inam land null and void and its proviso permits Government sanction only of transactions “not being a gift” — Gift of inam land void ab initio and incapable of validation — Registration without sanction contrary to S. 22-A of no legal effect — State, as custodian of temple property, cannot itself be the donee — Trustee’s fiduciary duty of ordinary prudence — Gift, being gratuitous, never “necessary or beneficial” to institution — Lease to Government sustained in view of construction from public funds; fair rent enhanced — Costs imposed on State for defending void transaction.

Question for Consideration

Whether the State Government, which the law requires to act as custodian of properties of religious/charitable institutions, can itself become the recipient of a gift of such property from a temporary trustee of a temple. [Para 2]

Facts in Brief

Land measuring 1 acre 10 cents in S. Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2, Kodumudi Village, Erode District, belonged to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple. On 30.08.2017, on the strength of a Tehsildar’s certificate describing him as trustee, the seventh respondent (temporary trustee) executed a registered Gift Deed of the land in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu for construction of a Taluk Office; the Tehsildar accepted it. The Revenue Department mutated the land, reclassified it as “Sarkar Poramboke” and built the Taluk Office. The hereditary trustee’s writ petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court on 19.03.2019, holding that “gift” is not mentioned in S. 34 and that the character of the land was a disputed question of fact. Devotees of the Temple were permitted to file SLPs. During pendency, by affidavit dated 23.03.2022, the State conceded that the land is inam land granted to the deity under Inam Title Deed No. 388, that S. 41 prohibits its gift, and that the Revenue Department would take it on lease; a Fair Rent Committee fixed rent at Rs. 13,235/- p.m. [Paras 4–9]

Held

1. Nature of temple property. Property dedicated to a deity ceases to belong to the donor, priest, trustee or State; it vests in the deity, and every custodian holds it only in trust for the deity and its worshippers. Secular administration of religious property is amenable to regulation (Shirur Mutt; A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu). The 1959 Act shields temple property from dissipation by an improvident trustee or an overreaching State; a custodian does not cease to be bound by its custodianship merely because it is also the sovereign. [Paras 23–25]
2. Comparative position. Comparable regimes in England and Wales (Charities Act 2011, s. 117), New York (Religious Corporations Law § 12) and Ontario (Religious Organizations’ Lands Act, ss. 9, 12, 23) withhold religious/charitable land from free disposal and require external sanction, treating the State as a guardian whose consent is a precondition. [Paras 26–27]
3. Section 41, not Section 34, governs inam land. On the State’s own affidavit, the land is inam granted to the deity for its support and maintenance. Since S. 34(5) excludes the inams referred to in S. 41, the transaction is governed by S. 41. [Para 28]
4. Gift of inam land void ab initio. S. 41(1) declares any exchange, gift, sale, mortgage or long lease of such inam null and void, and its proviso permits the Government to sanction only transactions “not being a gift”. The Legislature has consciously withheld from a gift even the possibility of validation; no sanction could have breathed life into it. The Gift Deed dated 30.08.2017 is null and void. [Paras 29–31]
5. Registration cannot cure statutory voidness. Under S. 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 (Tamil Nadu), the deed could not be registered without prior sanction of the competent authority, and no such sanction could have been granted for a gift of inam land. Registration under one statute cannot validate what another statute governing the property declares void. [Para 31]
6. Same result under Section 34. Even if S. 34 applied, admittedly no sanction of the Commissioner (after publication and invitation of objections) and no prior Government approval was obtained; the gift would be void for want of sanction. The High Court erred in treating the absence of the word “gift” in S. 34 as permitting gifts. [Para 32]
7. Trustee’s powers are fiduciary, not unconstrained. Under Ss. 27 and 28, every trustee, permanent or temporary, must deal with trust property as a person of ordinary prudence would deal with his own and obey lawful orders. A gift confers no benefit on the donor institution, is not an act of ordinary prudence, and defeats the supervisory role of the Commissioner under Ss. 23 and 34. [Para 33]
8. State is custodian, not owner. Acceptance of a gift of temple land by a Revenue functionary, however laudable the public purpose, offends the object of the 1959 Act. Temple property is held for the deity, not for gratuitous disposal by whoever holds the office of trustee. [Para 34]
9. Conduct of the State deprecated. Despite the HR&CE Department asserting in 2017 that the land belonged to the deity, the Revenue Department mutated and built on it, and the State defended the gift before the High Court and this Court (including asserting absolute vesting in its 2019 counter and in an I.A. in 2021), conceding only after this Court’s order dated 21.02.2022 required an affidavit. For over four years temple property was treated as Government property on a deed without legal sanction. [Paras 35–36]
10. Lease sustained; fair rent enhanced. As the Taluk Office has been built from public funds and serves a public need, the lease in favour of the State is not set aside. Applying G.O. (MS) No. 200 dated 02.11.2018 (225% of guideline or market value, whichever is higher) and the Fair Rent Committee’s formula (0.1% of total value per month), rent is refixed as under: [Paras 37–38]

    Market value of adjoining developed land	Rs. 167 / sq. ft.
    225% thereof (G.O. (MS) No. 200)	Rs. 375.75 / sq. ft.
    Land value (47,916 sq. ft.)	Rs. 1,80,04,437
    Add: depreciated value of building	Rs. 1,24,33,603
    Total value	Rs. 3,04,38,040
    0.1% per month	Rs. 30,438
    Rent fixed (rounded off), w.e.f. 08.03.2019	Rs. 31,000 / month

11. No unilateral control by lessee-State. The trust (through its trustee or, absent a Board, the Fit Person), in consultation with the Committee, retains power to determine and revise lease terms, including rent, on each renewal having regard to prevailing market rental value and the institution’s best interests; renewal only upon fresh determination of fair rent and not as a matter of course. [Para 39]

General Directions

• State authorities and the HR&CE Department shall strictly comply with Ss. 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act and the Rules before effecting or sanctioning any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of property of a religious institution.
• Every decision concerning such property must be guided solely by the best interest of the trust, never by the Government’s administrative convenience.
• The State, as custodian, cannot usurp, or permit its officers to usurp, property of religious/charitable institutions; any such transaction, whatever its label or ostensible public purpose, is liable to be struck down. [Para 40]

Result

Cases Referred

• Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412 (7-Judge Bench) — relied on
• A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 9 SCC 548 — relied on
• Edukanti Kistamma v. S. Venkatareddy, (2010) 1 SCC 756 — cited by amicus
• A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2007) 7 SCC 482 — cited by amicus
• T.R. Ramesh v. Commissioner, W.A. No. 105 of 2025 (Mad.); Suo Motu W.P. No. 574 of 2015 (judgment dt. 07.06.2021); Chief Secretary v. Director, Rev. Appl. Nos. 169–170 of 2021 — cited by amicus

Statutes Referred

• Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — Ss. 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A, 41
• Registration Act, 1908 (as applicable to Tamil Nadu) — S. 22-A
• Constitution of India — Arts. 25, 26
• Foreign: Charities Act 2011 (E&W), s. 117; N.Y. Religious Corporations Law § 12; Religious Organizations’ Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.23, ss. 9, 12, 23

Counsel

Mr. S. Ravi Shankar (for appellants); Mr. K.L. Janjani (for temporary trustee, R-7); Mrs. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Addl. A.G. (for State); Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, Sr. Adv. (for HR&CE Department); Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Amicus Curiae.