The State is the custodian of temple land, not its owner: a gift of a temple plot for a taluk office is void

Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe voided a trustee's gift of temple inam land to Tamil Nadu, raised the Government's rent to ₹31,000 a month and ordered costs against the State.

On 30 August 2017 a temporary trustee of a temple in Erode district gifted 1 acre and 10 cents of the temple's land to the Government of Tamil Nadu so that a taluk office could be built on it. The Tehsildar accepted the gift on the same day, and construction followed. On 16 October 2026 the Supreme Court declared the gift deed null and void. Justice Alok Aradhe, writing for himself and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, put the question simply: can the State, which the law makes the custodian of temple property, become the recipient of a gift of that property from a temple trustee? The answer was no. The Government keeps the land only as a lessee, at a rent the Court raised to ₹31,000 a month backdated to 2019, and the State must pay ₹1 lakh in costs to the temple.

A gift executed and accepted on the same day

The land, in Survey Nos. 36/4, 36/5 and 41/2 of Kodumudi village, belonged to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple. On 30 August 2017 the Tehsildar issued a certificate that S. Bhoopathy was the temple's trustee, for the purpose of registering a deed. A gift deed in favour of the Government, through the District Collector and the Tehsildar, was executed, accepted by the Tehsildar and registered the same day.

Some villagers challenged the gift and later withdrew their petition. The hereditary trustee then filed a writ petition arguing that the alienation violated Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The Madras High Court dismissed it on 19 March 2019. It held that Section 34 does not mention gifts, so a gift was not prohibited, and that whether the land fell under the Act at all was a disputed question of fact. It left the trustee free to file a civil suit. The hereditary trustee did not pursue the matter, and devotees of the temple obtained permission to come to the Supreme Court.

The State changes its stand

In an affidavit of 23 March 2022, the Principal Secretary for Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments accepted that the land was inam land granted to the deity for its upkeep under Inam Title Deed No. 388. That meant Section 41 of the Act applied, and it makes a gift or settlement of such land null and void. A high-level committee chaired by the Chief Secretary had decided on 4 February 2022 that the Revenue Department would cancel the gift and take the land on lease. A fair rent committee fixed the rent at ₹13,235 a month for three years. In the Supreme Court, the Additional Advocate General and senior counsel for the endowments department did not dispute that the land belongs to the temple.

The temporary trustee, now described as the hereditary trustee, argued that the land had been given in the public interest for a taluk office on a unanimous decision of devotees and villagers, and that a gift was lawful because Section 34 does not mention it.

Property that belongs to the deity

The Court began from the nature of endowed property. Once given, it no longer belongs to the donor, the priest, the trustee or the State. It vests in the deity, and every hand it passes through holds it only in trust for the deity and the worshippers. Relying on the seven-Judge Bench in Shirur Mutt and on A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu, the Court held that while Articles 25 and 26 protect religious practice, the secular administration of religious property can be regulated by law. Sections 23, 27, 28, 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act exist to protect temple property from being dissipated, whether by an improvident trustee or by an overreaching State. The Court also referred to similar restrictions in other countries, including Section 117 of the Charities Act 2011 in England and Wales.

Because the land is inam land, Section 41(1) applies and makes the gift null and void. Since a void gift cannot be validated later by the Commissioner or the Government, its registration was barred by Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908 as it applies in Tamil Nadu. Registration under one statute cannot validate what another statute governing the same property declares void.

Even if the land fell under Section 34, as the High Court assumed, the result would be the same. No sanction of the Commissioner, preceded by publication and objections, and no prior approval of the Government was obtained before 30 August 2017. The gift would be void for want of sanction.

Neither the trustee nor the State had the power

The Court rejected the argument that a temporary trustee has unrestricted authority over trust property. Sections 27 and 28 require every trustee, permanent or temporary, to manage the institution's property as carefully as a person of ordinary prudence would manage their own. A gift, being a transfer for nothing, cannot be an act of ordinary prudence in managing someone else's property, and it is inconsistent with the trustee's fiduciary role.

As for the Revenue Department's claim that it was entitled to receive the gift, the Court held that the State, through the Commissioner and other officers under the Act, is “a custodian and regulator of temple properties, not their owner”. A Revenue officer accepting a gift of temple land, however good the public purpose, defeats the object of the Act.

Four years of defending the gift

The Court also recorded how the State had conducted itself. In the villagers' 2017 petition, an Assistant Commissioner of the endowments department had stated on affidavit that the land belonged to the deity and that the trustee could not convey it. The Revenue Department nonetheless mutated the land in the name of the taluk office, reclassified it as government poramboke and began building. The State defended the gift in the High Court, and in its counter affidavit of 23 October 2019 in the Supreme Court said the land had vested absolutely in the Government and did not belong to any religious institution. It repeated that stand in 2021 while seeking to vacate a status quo order. It conceded only after the Court, on 21 February 2022, required the Secretary for endowments to state on affidavit whether a trustee could gift away temple property. A department that is the statutory custodian of temple property, the Court said, should have recognised the position from the start.

Rent at the market rate

The Court used the fair rent committee's own formula. It took the land's market value, ₹1,80,04,437 for 47,916 square feet, added the depreciated value of the building, ₹1,24,33,603, giving ₹3,04,38,040, and applied the committee's rate of 0.1 per cent a month. That produced ₹30,438, which the Court rounded up to ₹31,000 a month. It made clear that continuing the lease gives the Revenue Department no unilateral control over its terms. The temple trust, acting through its trustee or the Fit Person appointed under the Act, will set and revise the terms on each renewal with reference to market rent and the temple's interest, and a renewal requires a fresh determination of fair rent.

Order

The High Court's order was set aside. The Court declared the land to be inam property belonging to and vested in the temple, the gift deed null and void under Section 41(1), and its registration of no legal effect under Section 22-A. The Government's lease continues, or is to be renewed if it has expired, at ₹31,000 a month from 8 March 2019, the date the land was handed over for construction. The rent is to be revised every three years under Section 34-A but never below that amount, and arrears, after adjusting payments made, are to be paid within three months. The State must pay ₹1 lakh in costs to the temple within eight weeks.

The Court also directed that the State and the endowments department must strictly follow Sections 34, 34-A and 41 and the Rules before any exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of religious property. Every decision about such property must be guided only by the institution's interest and not by the Government's administrative convenience, and the State as custodian may not take, or allow its officers to take, the property it is meant to protect, whatever the label or public purpose. The Court recorded its appreciation for the assistance of the amicus curiae, Mr Shailesh Madiyal.