The Supreme Court has held that the State government, which is legally entrusted with protecting temple properties, cannot itself take over such properties by way of a gift deed in the name of public interest or administrative convenience [K Ramalingam and Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others].

A Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe made the observation while holding that the transfer of land belonging to the Nagapalayam Mariamman-Ponnachiamman Temple in Tamil Nadu's Erode district to the State government for the construction of a Taluk Office was illegal.

The Court observed that the State's responsibility as a custodian of religious properties did not give it the authority to acquire ownership of such properties.

"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 Court said.

The dispute concerned 1 acre and 10 cents of land belonging to the temple at Kodumudi village in Erode district.

In August 2017, a temporary trustee executed a gift deed transferring the land 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, holding that the relevant statutory provision did not expressly prohibit gifts of temple property.

Devotees subsequently approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found that the land was an inam property granted for the support and maintenance of the deity. Consequently, Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, expressly prohibited its transfer by way of gift.

The Court clarified that such a gift was void from the outset and could not be validated even through government sanction.

"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 stated.

The Bench also rejected the contention that a temporary trustee could transfer temple property without restriction.

It observed that temple trustees are required to administer religious properties prudently and for the benefit of the institution.

"A gift, being a transfer without consideration, cannot by its very nature be characterised as an act of ordinary prudence in the management of another’s property," it stated.

The Court was particularly critical of the Tamil Nadu government's conduct.

It noted that despite the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department acknowledging the temple's ownership, the Revenue Department had reclassified the land as government property and proceeded with construction.

The State continued defending the transaction until the Supreme Court sought a clarification in February 2022.

The Bench observed that the government should not have required judicial intervention to recognise its statutory responsibilities.

However, considering that a Taluk Office had already been constructed using public funds, the Court decided against disturbing the government's continued occupation of the land under a lease arrangement.

Instead, it enhanced the monthly rent from ₹13,235 to ₹31,000, payable retrospectively from March 8, 2019.

The rent must be revised every three years, and the terms of the lease must be determined in the temple's best interests, the bench directed.

The Court further ordered the government to clear outstanding rent within three months and imposed costs of ₹1 lakh, payable to the temple within eight weeks.

State authorities must strictly comply with statutory safeguards governing the transfer and leasing of religious properties, the top court underscored.

The appellants were represented by advocate S Ravi Shankar.

The Tamil Nadu government was represented by Additional Advocate General Haripriya Padmanabhan and advocate Kanika Kalaiyarasan.

Senior Advocate M Sathayanarayan appeared for the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department along with advocates B Karunakaran and Jeyasri.

Advocate KL Janjani represented the temporary trustee.

Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal assisted the Court as amicus curiae, along with advocates Anchit Singla, Amit Pai, Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Muktha Rao and Ananya Mehrotra.

[Read Judgment]