The Supreme Court has declared void a 2017 gift of temple land to the Tamil Nadu Government for the construction of a Taluk Office, holding that inam property dedicated to a deity cannot be gifted under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act, 1959. The Court ruled that no subsequent sanction by the Government or any other authority could validate the transaction and ordered the State to pay ₹1 lakh in costs to the temple, as reported in Verdictum.
A Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe held that the State, as the statutory custodian and regulator of temple property, cannot assume ownership of the assets it is entrusted to protect. The Court, however, allowed the Government to continue occupying the land under a lease, enhancing the monthly rent to ₹31,000 with effect from March 8, 2019.
The judgment, delivered on 16 October 2026, set aside a 19 March 2019, order of the Madras High Court that had dismissed a challenge to the gift deed.
Supreme Court: Gift of Deity’s Inam Land is Void Ab Initio
The dispute concerns 1 acre and 10 cents of land in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 in Kodumudi village, Erode district, belonging to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple. The land was granted to the deity for its support and maintenance under Inam Title Deed No. 388.
On 30 August 2017, the temple’s temporary trustee, S. Bhoopathy, executed a gift deed transferring the land to the Tamil Nadu Government, represented by the District Collector and the Tehsildar, for the construction of a Taluk Office. The Tehsildar accepted the gift, and the deed was registered.
Villagers initially challenged the transaction before the Madras High Court, but their petition was withdrawn on March 7, 2018. The hereditary trustee subsequently filed another petition, arguing that the transfer violated the restrictions on the alienation of temple property under the HR&CE Act.
On 19 March 2019, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 34 of the Act did not expressly mention gifts and that whether the land fell within the Act’s scope involved disputed questions of fact.
During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, however, the Tamil Nadu Government acknowledged in an affidavit dated March 23, 2022, that the land was inam property granted to the deity and that Section 41, rather than Section 34, governed the transaction. The State also stated that the Revenue Department had agreed to cancel the gift deed and take the land on lease.
Explaining why the distinction between the two provisions was decisive, the Supreme Court observed, “…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)”…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”.
The Court held that Section 34(5) expressly excludes inams covered by Section 41 from its operation. While Section 34 permits certain transactions involving temple property with the required sanction, Section 41(1) specifically prohibits gifts of the relevant inam properties and does not provide any mechanism for their subsequent validation.
The Bench also ruled that the registration of the gift deed was contrary to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu. Registration could not cure a transaction that the governing law expressly declared void.
The Court added that even if Section 34 had applied, the gift would still have been invalid because the mandatory sanction of the HR&CE Commissioner, preceded by the prescribed publication and invitation of objections, and the Government’s prior approval had not been obtained.
State Cannot Treat Temple Property As Its Own, says Supreme Court
The Bench rejected the argument that the temporary trustee had the authority to gift away the temple’s land for a public purpose.
Referring to Sections 27 and 28 of the HR&CE Act, the Court said trustees, whether permanent or temporary, were required to administer temple property with the care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in managing their own affairs.
A gift, being a transfer without consideration, could not be considered an act of ordinary prudence, the Court held, since it conferred no corresponding benefit on the institution whose property was being transferred.
The judgment emphasised that the State’s role under the law was one of custodianship, not ownership. The Bench observed, “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.”
The Court noted that temple properties are accumulated through devotees’ offerings and endowments made with the understanding that the assets would remain dedicated to the deity. Such property, it said, does not belong to the donor, priest, trustee or State after it has been dedicated.
Supreme Court Criticises TVK Govt for Defending Illegal Transfer for Years
The Bench also criticised the Tamil Nadu Government for continuing to defend the gift deed despite its own officials having acknowledged that the land belonged to the temple.
After the deed was executed and registered in August 2017, the Revenue Department mutated the land in the Government’s name, reclassified it as “Sarkar Poramboke” and began construction of the Taluk Office. The State defended the transaction before the Madras High Court and continued to maintain its position before the Supreme Court.
In a counter-affidavit dated October 23, 2019, the State asserted that the land had vested absolutely in the Government and would “not belong to any others or any religious institutions”.
The Government changed its position only after the Supreme Court, on February 21, 2022, directed the Secretary in charge of Endowments to clarify on affidavit whether a trustee could gift away temple property.
The Bench said the State’s statutory role should have led it to recognise the illegality at the outset, rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to examine the issue.
It observed that the State’s belated concession could not obscure the fact that the temple’s property had been treated as Government property for more than four years on the strength of a deed that, by the State’s own admission, had no sanction in law.
Taluk Office Allowed to Remain; Rent Raised to ₹31,000 Per Month
Although it declared the gift deed void, the Supreme Court declined to cancel the lease under which the Government occupies the land, noting that a Taluk Office had already been constructed using public funds and was serving the administrative needs of the area.
The Fair Rent Committee had fixed the rent at ₹13,235 per month in February 2022. The Supreme Court recalculated the rent by taking into account the market value of the land, the applicable valuation formula and the depreciated value of the building.
The Bench determined the fair rent at ₹30,438 per month and rounded it off to ₹31,000, payable with effect from March 8, 2019, the date on which the land was handed over for construction.
The Court directed that the rent be revised once every three years under Section 34-A of the HR&CE Act, and that it must not fall below ₹31,000 per month. The State was ordered to clear all arrears from 8 March 2019, after adjusting amounts already paid, within three months.
The Court further clarified that the continuation of the lease did not confer unilateral control over its terms on the Revenue Department. The temple trust would determine the lease period, renewal and other conditions, with the temple’s interests taking priority. Any renewal would require a fresh determination of fair rent.
Government Ordered to Pay ₹1 Lakh to Temple
Setting aside the Madras High Court’s order, the Supreme Court declared that the land was inam property belonging to and vested in the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple. It declared the 30 August 2017, gift deed null and void under Section 41(1) of the HR&CE Act and ruled that its registration had no legal effect.
The State was directed to pay ₹1 lakh in costs to the temple within eight weeks, taking into account its acceptance of the gift and its continued defence of the transaction before the courts.
The Bench also directed the State Government and the HR&CE Department to strictly comply with Sections 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act and the rules framed under it when dealing with temple property.
The Court made clear that decisions concerning religious and charitable institutions must be guided by the institutions’ best interests and benefits, not the administrative convenience of the Government. It held that the State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp the property it is charged with protecting.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
