State Is Custodian, Not Owner of Temple Property: Supreme Court Voids Gift of Inam Land to Tamil Nadu, Retains Lease at Enhanced Rent and Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs

Case Name: K. Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary and Others

Date of Judgment: 16 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1144

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.

Held: The Supreme Court held that a gift of inam land dedicated to the support and maintenance of a deity is void ab initio under Section 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. While the provision permits governmental sanction for certain other transactions involving inam property, it expressly excludes gifts from that power. Consequently, neither governmental sanction nor registration can validate such a transfer. The State, entrusted with the protection of temple properties, acts as their custodian and regulator, not their owner, and cannot accept their gratuitous transfer merely because the proposed use serves a public purpose.

The Court further held that trustees, whether permanent or temporary, must administer temple property prudently and consistently with their fiduciary duties. Decisions concerning religious or charitable property must advance the institution’s interests rather than the Government’s administrative convenience. Continued governmental occupation under a lease does not confer unilateral control over its terms, which must protect the temple’s interests and reflect periodic determination of fair rent.

Summary: The dispute concerned 1 acre and 10 cents of land belonging to Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Kodumudi Village, Erode District. On 30 August 2017, a temporary trustee executed a registered gift deed transferring the land to the Tamil Nadu Government for construction of a Taluk Office. The Madras High Court dismissed the hereditary trustee’s challenge, reasoning that Section 34 of the 1959 Act did not expressly mention gifts and that disputed questions concerning the land’s character required adjudication in a civil suit. Devotees subsequently obtained permission to challenge that ruling before the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the State acknowledged that the property was inam land granted to the deity under Inam Title Deed No. 388 and that its transfer by gift was prohibited. It proposed retaining the land on lease, with a committee fixing monthly rent at ₹13,235. The Supreme Court held that Section 41, rather than Section 34, governed the transaction because Section 34(5) expressly excludes the inams covered by Section 41. The gift was therefore incapable of validation. Its registration was also contrary to Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in Tamil Nadu, and carried no legal effect.

The Court criticised the State for accepting and defending the transfer despite its statutory responsibility to safeguard temple property. Although the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department had asserted the deity’s ownership and questioned the executant’s authority, the Revenue Department mutated the land in favour of the Taluk Office, reclassified it as “Sarkar Poramboke” and proceeded with construction. The State abandoned its defence of the gift only after the Supreme Court required clarification on affidavit in 2022. Its belated concession, the Court observed, did not erase the fact that temple property had been treated as government property for over four years without legal sanction.

Since a Taluk Office had already been constructed using public funds and served an administrative need, the Court declined to annul the lease. Applying the Fair Rent Committee’s formula to the valuation accepted in the judgment, it enhanced monthly rent to ₹31,000 with retrospective effect from 8 March 2019. It also directed strict compliance with the statutory safeguards governing transactions involving religious institutional property.

Decision: The appeals were allowed and the Madras High Court’s order  was set aside. The Supreme Court declared that the land belonged to and vested in the temple, invalidated the gift deed dated 30 August 2017, and held its registration to be of no legal effect. The governmental lease was retained, with renewal directed if it had expired, at monthly rent of ₹31,000 effective from 8 March 2019. Rent must be re-fixed every three years under Section 34-A and cannot fall below that amount. The temple trust must determine the lease period, renewal and remaining terms in accordance with the Act, treating the temple’s benefit as paramount.