‘State Is Custodian, Not Owner’: Supreme Court Voids Gift of Temple Land to Government

The Supreme Court has held that any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage of inam land granted for the support or maintenance of a religious institution is rendered null and void under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe said the legislature had consciously left no scope for validating a gift of inam property, making such a transaction void ab initio.

Can the State accept a gift of temple property?

Court held that the State acts as a custodian, and not the owner, of temple property and therefore cannot accept a gift of such property. It said every decision concerning the property of a religious or charitable institution must be guided by the best interests and benefit of the institution, and not by the administrative convenience of the government.

"The State, as custodian, cannot unilaterally usurp, nor permit any of its officers to usurp, the property of the religious/charitable institutions it is charged to protect; a transaction that offends this principle, whatever its label or ostensible public purpose, is liable to be struck down," the Bench said.

Dealing with an appeal filed by K Ramalingam and others, Court held that the gift of temple inam land to the Government was void under Section 41(1) of the 1959 Act, which prohibits such transactions without making an exception for gifts.

Court also emphasised that a registering officer cannot register documents transferring immovable property belonging to a religious institution without the mandatory sanction of the competent authority.

"Registration under the Act cannot cure the fundamental infirmity of a transaction that is declared void by a governing special statute," the Bench said, holding that the gift deed's registration was invalid.

Court further said a trustee must administer the institution's affairs and property with the care of a person of ordinary prudence. A gift, being a transfer without consideration, confers no benefit on the institution and violates the trustee's fiduciary duty. A trustee, therefore, cannot gift trust property.

How did the dispute arise?

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a March 19, 2019 order of the Madras High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by the eighth respondent, the hereditary trustee.

The land, measuring one acre and 10 cents in Kodumudi Village, Erode district, belonged to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple and was administered by the temple trust.

On August 30, 2017, the temple's temporary trustee executed a gift deed transferring the land to the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the District Collector and the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar accepted the gift, which was intended to facilitate the construction of a Taluk Office.

The hereditary trustee challenged the transaction. The high court held that the words "gift/settlement" did not appear in Section 34 of the 1959 Act and that alienation by way of gift was therefore not prohibited.

The appellants, who are devotees of the temple, were subsequently granted permission to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court.

Before the Apex Court, the State government submitted that the land belonged to the temple and the gift deed could not be sustained. However, it argued that a Taluk Office had already been constructed on the land using public funds and served a genuine public need.

The Bench highlighted that religious institutions hold substantial assets accumulated over centuries through offerings and endowments made with the understanding that the property would remain dedicated to the deity.

"Our country’s religious institutions are not merely places of worship, they are, in law and, in fact, repositories of considerable wealth, land, buildings, jewellery and specie, accumulated over centuries through the offerings of ordinary devotees and the endowments of kings and commoners alike, given in the faith that what was dedicated to the deity would remain dedicated to the deity in perpetuity," the Bench said.

Court observed that such property, once dedicated, ceases to belong to the donor, priest, trustee or State. It vests in the deity, and those who subsequently manage it hold it in trust for the deity and the community of worshippers.

"We are unable to accept the submission that a temporary trustee’s authority over trust property is unconstrained. Sections 27 and 28 of the 1959 Act...A gift of temple property to the Government, being wholly gratuitous, militates against the very object of the supervisory role assigned to the Commissioner under Sections 23 and 34 of the 1959 Act," the Bench said.

Rejecting the State's claim that the Revenue Department could receive the land as a gift, the Court said the State's role was limited to protecting and regulating temple properties, not owning them.

Although the Court declared the gift deed void, it declined to set aside the lease in favour of the State government because the Revenue Department had already constructed a Taluk Office on the land using public funds.

Court declared that the land was inam property belonging to the temple and that the gift deed executed in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu was null and void and had no legal effect. However, the lease in favour of the Government would continue. If it had expired, it would have to be renewed. The lease rent was enhanced to Rs 31,000 per month with effect from March 8, 2019, the date on which the land was handed over for construction.

The rent must be re-fixed every three years under Section 34-A of the 1959 Act, but cannot be lower than Rs 31,000 per month. The temple trust will determine the lease period, renewal and other terms in accordance with the Act, keeping the temple's benefit paramount.

The State was directed to pay outstanding rent, after adjusting any amount already paid, within three months.

Court also noted that the State had accepted the gift and continued to defend the transaction before the high court and the Supreme Court despite its statutory obligation to protect temple property. It directed the State to pay costs of Rs 1 lakh to the temple within eight weeks and ordered the authorities to strictly comply with Sections 34, 34-A and 41 of the 1959 Act.

Case Title: K Ramalingam And Others Vs Government of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Secretary And Others

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026