The Tamil Nadu government cannot acquire ownership of temple property through a gift deed, even when the land is intended for a public project, the Supreme Court has ruled, underscoring the legal limits on the State’s authority over religious institutions.
The ruling came in a dispute over land belonging to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Erode district. A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe declared the transfer of the temple’s land to the State government for constructing a Taluk Office illegal.
The Court made it clear that the government’s responsibility to protect religious and charitable properties does not give it the power to appropriate them. Public interest and administrative convenience cannot override statutory safeguards governing such assets.
“The State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp” property belonging to religious or charitable institutions, the Bench observed, warning that transactions violating this principle can be struck down regardless of how they are presented.
Gift deed held invalid under Tamil Nadu law
The case concerned 1 acre and 10 cents of temple land in Kodumudi village. In August 2017, a temporary trustee executed a gift deed transferring the property to the Tamil Nadu government for the construction of a Taluk Office.
The transaction was challenged before the Madras High Court, which dismissed the petition in March 2019. The High Court had reasoned that the applicable statutory provision did not expressly prohibit the gifting of temple property.
Devotees subsequently moved the Supreme Court, which took a different view after examining the nature of the land and the relevant legal provisions.
The Bench found that the property was an inam grant intended to support and maintain the deity. Such land falls under the restrictions imposed by Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which prohibits its transfer through a gift.
Consequently, the Court held that the deed was void from the outset. Even formal approval from the government could not make an otherwise prohibited transfer legally valid.
The Bench observed that a gift of land dedicated to a deity was “void ab initio” and could not be revived through official sanction.
Trustee’s authority does not extend to unrestricted transfers
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that a temporary trustee could transfer temple property without meaningful restrictions.
Trustees are responsible for managing religious assets prudently and in the interests of the institution they serve. Since a gift involves transferring property without receiving consideration, it cannot ordinarily be treated as a prudent act of managing someone else’s assets, the Court said.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between administering temple property and acquiring ownership of it. Those entrusted with managing religious institutions cannot treat their assets as freely disposable, particularly when legislation expressly restricts their transfer.
Government criticised for treating temple land as its own
The Bench expressed concern over the conduct of different government departments during the dispute.
Although the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had acknowledged that the land belonged to the temple, the Revenue Department reclassified it as government property and proceeded with construction.
The State continued to defend the transaction until the Supreme Court sought clarification in February 2022. The Bench said the government should have recognised and discharged its statutory responsibilities without requiring prolonged judicial intervention.
However, the Court also considered the practical consequences of its ruling. By that stage, the Taluk Office had already been constructed using public funds.
Rather than ordering the government to vacate the premises, the Bench allowed it to continue occupying the land under a lease arrangement, while ensuring that the temple received substantially higher rent.
Rent raised, arrears ordered to be cleared
The Supreme Court increased the monthly rent payable for the land from ₹13,235 to ₹31,000, with the revised amount applicable retrospectively from March 8, 2019.
The rent must be revised every three years, and the lease conditions must be framed with the temple’s interests as the primary consideration.
The State government was also directed to clear all outstanding rent within three months. Additionally, the Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh, payable to the temple within eight weeks.
The directions seek to balance the continued use of an already constructed public building with the legal rights of the religious institution that owns the land.
The judgment sends a clear message to State authorities: government ownership cannot be established through an unlawful gift of temple property, and public projects must comply with the statutory protections governing religious assets.