http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AHOBILA MATAM

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1986

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) OZA, G.L. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  245            1987 SCR  (1) 232  1987 SCC  (1)  38        JT 1986   858  1986 SCALE  (2)841

ACT:     Madras   Inams   (Assessment)  Act,   1956:   s.   3(1), proviso--Exemption   to   inam  lands   held   on   ’service tenure’--Whether available to lands held by religious insti- tutions.     Expression  ’service  tenure’ in relation  to  religious institution-Whether  includes lands granted for  performance of worship.     Constitution of India, Article 26: Imposition of assess- ment    on   land   held   by    religious    denominational institutions--Whether violates fundamental right.

HEADNOTE:     The proviso to s. 3(1) of the Madras Inams  (Assessment) Act,  1956 provides that no assessment shall be leviable  in the  case  of  an inam granted on service  tenure  which  is proved to consist of an assignment of land revenue only.     Certain  lands were granted to the respondent  Matam  by one  of the Tanjore Princess. The purpose of the  grant  was not  known  but it was presumed to have been  made  for  the benefit of the Matam. The original grantee was the then Jeer of  the  Matam. The Inam Title Deed granted in 1881  by  the Inam Commissioner acknowledged the title of the Matam to  ’a religious endowment or a Matam Inam consisting of the  right to  the  Government Revenue on the said land  held  for  the support of the Matam’ and confirmed the Inam to the  Manager and his successor tax free.     Consequent on the enactment of the Madras Inams (Assess- ment) Act, 1956 the Revenue Divisional Officer made an order in  1963  levying  full assessment on the  lands.  The  writ petition  filed by the Matam against that order was  allOWed by the High Court on the ground that the proviso to s.  3(1) of  the Act prevented the levy of full assessment  on  lands held on service tenure. It took the view that the expression ’service tenure’ was not to be restricted to a service  Inam and  that  it would include any grant for the support  of  a religious or charitable institution. 233     In  appeal  to this Court under Art.  133(1)(c)  of  the Constitution, it was contended for the respondent Matam that the  imposition of full assessment on lands held by a  reli-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

gions  institution would be hit by Art. 26 of the  Constitu- tion. Allowing the appeal by the State, the Court,     HELD:  The proviso to s. 3(1) of the Madras  Inams  (As- sessment)  Act,  1956  is not applicable to  lands  held  by religious  institutions-  The inam lands  in  question  are, therefore, liable to full assessment. [237A]     Three possible views have been taken of the grants  made in  connection with religions institutions: first, that  the land  was granted to the institution; secondly, that it  was intended to be attached to a particular office; and thirdly, that  it  was granted to a named individual,  burdened  with service,  the  person so named happening to  be  the  office holder  at the time of the grant. This  distinction  between grants  to  institutions  as such and grants  made  for  the performance of service either by attaching the service to  a particular  office or by naming the individual  grantee  and burdening the grant with service, the named individual being the holder of an office, for the the time being, places  the former in a category different from service inams. [236-D]     In  the  instant case, the lands were  granted  for  the benefit of the Matam. They fall in the first category. These cannot, therefore, be considered as lands subject to service tenure. [234H, 236G]     Subramania  v.  Kailasanatha, AIR 1934  Madras  258  and Hindu  Religious  Endowments  Board,  Madras  v.  Thadikonda Koteswara Rao, AIR 1937 Madras 852, applied.     The High Court was not right in interpreting the expres- sion  ’service tenure’ by referring to s. 44B of the  Madras Hindu  Religious Endowments Act, 1927 (Act 2 of 1927)  where that expression is in fact not used at all. The  classifica- tion  of grants for the benefit of a  religious  institution along with other service inams by Paragraph 54 of the Stand- ing  Orders of the Board of Revenue also does not throw  any light  on  the  interpretation of  the  expression  ’service tenure’ in Madras Inams (Assessment) Act. The expression has to  be construed with reference to the object of the Act  to impose  full  assessment on inam lands  hitherto  wholly  or partly exempt from levy of land revenue. [236H, 235H-236-B] The  mere imposition of assessment on lands held by a  reli- gious 234 denominational institution cannot attract the right  guaran- teed by Art. 26. The burden imposed is a burden to be shared in  the  same manner by all the owners of the lands  in  the State and not a special burden imposed on the denominational institution.  Burdens of that nature are outside  the  right guaranteed by Art. 26. [237C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No:  446  of 1973     From  the  Judgment and Order dated  18.11.1970  of  the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 389 of 1967. M.M. Abdul Khader and A.V. Rangam for the Appellant. K. Ram Kumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     CHINNAPPA  REDDY,  J. This appeal is  by  a  certificate granted by the Madras High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. The appellant is the State of Tamil Nadu.  The respondent  is  the Ahobila Matam, a  well  known  religious institution.  The question relates to the  applicability  of the  Tamil  Nadu Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956 in  regard  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

some  lands  situated in  Narasimhapuram,  Papanasam  Taluk, Thanjavur  District belonging to the institution. The  lands are  covered by Inam Title Deed No.2214 dated July 29,  1881 granted by the Inam Commissioner to the Manager for the time being  of  Sri Ahobila Matam. By the title  deed,  the  Inam Commissioner, by order of the Governor-in-Council of  Madras acting  on  behalf of the Secretary of State  for  India  in Council,  acknowledged the title of the Ahobila Matam to  "a religious endowment or a Matam Inam consisting of the  right to the Government Revenue on land claimed to be acres  28.11 cents  of dry, 58.38 acres of wet and 6.83 acres  of  garden and situated in the whole village of Narasimhapuram  besides Poramboke in the taluk of Kumbakonam District of Tanjore and held for the support of the Ahobila Matam" and confirmed the Inam to the Manager for the time being of the Ahobila  Matam and his successor "tax free to be held without  interference so  long as the conditions are duly fulfilled." The  extract of  the  Inam Fair Register mentioned in Column 8  that  the grant  was made by one of the Tanjore Princes, but that  the purpose of the grant was not known. It was presumed that the inam  was conferred for the benefit of the Matam. Column  13 mentioned  the original grantee as the Ahobilam  Servatantra Sri 235 Srinivasa Swami, apparently, the then Jeer of the Matam. The recommendation  of  the Inam Commissioner in Column  22  was that  the  title deed should be issued in the  name  of  the priest  for the time being of the Ahobila Matam. It  was  in pursuance of this recommendation that Inam Title Deed No. 22 14  was  issued. Consequent on the enactment of  the  Madras Inams(Assessment) Act, 1956, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam made an order on February. 28, 1963 levying  full assessment  on  the lands. The levy of  the  assessment  was questioned  by the Ahobila Matam by a Writ Petition  in  the Madras High Court. First, a learned Single Judge and then, a Division  Bench of Madras High Court quashed the  assessment on  the ground that the proviso to s.3 (1) of the  Act  pre- vented the levy of full assessment of lands held on  service tenure. The proviso to s. 3(1) of the Act is in the  follow- ing terms:-- "Provided  that  in the case of an Inam granted  on  service tenure  which is proved to consist of an assignment of  land revenue only, no assessment under this sub-section shall  be leviable,  and the inamdar shall be liable to pay  only  the quit-rent, Jodi, Kattubadi or other amount of a like nature, if any, which he has been paying before the commencement  of this Act."     The  question for consideration, therefore,  is  whether the  Inam  was granted on ’service tenure’. The  High  Court took  the view that the expression ’service tenure’ was  not to be restricted to a service inam and that it would include any  grant  for  the support of a  religious  or  charitable institution.  For  that purpose reliance was placed  on  the classification of inams in the Standing Orders of the  Board of Revenue. The Standing Orders divided inams into unenfran- chised  service  inams and  unenfranchised  personal  inams. Under the heading of unenfranchised service inams, religious and charitable inams were dealt with in Paragraph 54.  Para- graph  54 enjoined a duty on the Collector to see  that  the inams confirmed by the Inam Commissioner for the benefit  of or for service to be rendered to any religious or charitable institution  or for the maintenance of irrigation  works  or other works of public utility; were not enjoyed without  the terms of the grant being fulfilled. Religious and charitable inams  were further classified and in the first category  we

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

get  inams granted for the support or maintenance  of  Hindu religious institutions, inams granted for the performance of a charity or service connected with Hindu religious institu- tions  and  inams  granted for any  other  Hindu  charitable trust.  In the second category came the other inams.  We  do not think that the classification of grants 236 for the benefit of a religious institution along with  other service inams by Paragraph 54 of the Board’s Standing Orders throws light on the interpretation of the expression  ’serv- ice  tenure’ in Madras Inams Assessment Act. The  expression ’service’  in  connection with  religious  institutions  has acquired  a  special and significant meaning and we  do  not think that we will be justified in ignoring the well  under- stood  meaning given to the expressions ’service inams’  and ’service  tenure’  over decades of years. We must  not  also forget that the object of Madras Inams Assessment Act was to impose  full  assessment on Inam lands  hitherto  wholly  or partly  exempt  from levy of land revenue. As  far  back  as 1934,  the Madras High Court in Subramania  v.  Kailasanatha AIR  1934  Madras 258 (Venkata Subba Rao, J.),  pointed  out that there were three possible views that might be taken  of grants  made  in  connection  with  religious  institutions: "First,  that the land was granted to the institution,  sec- ondly,  that it was intended to be attached to a  particular office, and thirdly, that it was granted to a named individ- ual,  burdened with service, the person so named,  happening to  be  the office-holder, at the time of  the  grant.  This distinction  between  grants  to institutions  as  such  and grants made for the performance of service either by attach- ing  the  service to a particular office or  by  naming  the individual grantee and burdening the grant with service, the named individual being the holder of an office, for the time being. In Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Thadi- konda  Koteswara Rao, AIR 1937 Madras 852, a Division  Bench of  the  Madras  High Court considered a  number  of  grants bearing these distinctions in mind. Where the grant was "for the  worship of the idol in the pagoda" or "for  the  nithya naivedya  deeparathana" or "for the offering of  daily  nai- vaidyam  and  deeparathana", the grants  were  construed  as grants  in  favour of the institution and not as  grants  in favour  of  the office-holder or  individual  burdened  with service.  In  other words, such grants were not  treated  as service  inams but as grants in favour of institutions.  The decision  in Hindu Religious Endowments Board  v.  Koteswara Rao,  (supra),  is the leading case on the subject  and  has been  followed  consistently all these years by  the  Madras High  Court.  Lands granted to religious  institutions  (not either  to  the office-holder or to an  individual  burdened with service) for the performance of worship in a temple  or math have never been considered as lands subject to ’service tenure’. The High Court referred to s. 44(B) of Madras Act 2 of  1927. We find ourselves unable to derive any  assistance from that provision. Section 44B provided for resumption and regrant of inams granted for the support or maintenance of a math or for the performance of charity or service  connected with  a  math or temple. We do not think that  it  would  be proper  for us to interpret the expression ’service  tenure’ by refer- 237 ring  S. 44B of the Madras Act 2 of 1927 where that  expres- sion  is in fact not used at all. We are, therefore, of  the view  that the proviso to s. 3(1) is inapplicable  to  lands held by religious institutions and, therefore, the lands are liable to full assessment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

   Shri  Ram  Kumar,  learned counsel  for  the  respondent argued that the imposition of full assessment on lands  held by  the religious institution in the present case  would  be hit  by  Art. 26 of the Constitution which  gives  to  every religious.denomination the right to own and acquire  movable and  immovable  property  and to  administer  such  property inaccordance  with law. We are unable to understand how  the mere  imposition of assessment on lands held by a  religious denominational  institution can possibly attract  the  right guaranteed  by the Art. 26 of the Constitution.  The  burden imposed  is a burden to be shared in the same manner by  all the  owners  of  the lands in the State and  not  a  special burden imposed on the denominational institution. Burden  of that  nature are outside the right guaranteed by Art. 26  of the Constitution. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and  the orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court are set aside. The writ petition filed in the High Court is dismissed. P.S.S.                                                Appeal allowed. 238