Holding

The proviso to s.3(1) of the Madras Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956 does not extend to lands granted to religious institutions, making such lands subject to full assessment, and the assessment does not contravene Article 26.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed against a Madras High Court order that had quashed a full land‑revenue assessment on lands granted to the Ahobila Matam, a Hindu religious institution. The lands were originally given as an inam by a Tanjore prince and were recorded as a religious endowment held tax‑free. The High Court had held that the proviso to section 3(1) of the Madras Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956, which exempts lands granted on "service tenure", applied to the Matam’s lands, and that imposing assessment violated Article 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "service tenure" and held that it refers only to grants made for the performance of service attached to an office or individual, not to grants made for the benefit of a religious institution. Consequently, the proviso does not apply and the lands are liable to full assessment, and such assessment does not infringe Article 26. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s orders and dismissing the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether lands granted to a religious institution constitute "service tenure" within the meaning of the proviso to s.3(1) of the Madras Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956.
Whether the imposition of full land‑revenue assessment on lands held by a religious denomination violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 26
Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927s. 44B
Madras Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956s. 3(1)

Subjects

InamService tenureLand revenue assessmentReligious endowmentArticle 26Constitutional lawMadras Inams (Assessment) ActProperty rights

Judgment

A GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
v.
AHOBILA MATAM

NOVEMBER 17, 1986

B [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]

Madras Inams (Assessment) Act, 1956: s. 3( /), proviso-Exemp-
tion to inam lands held on 'service tenure'-Whether available to lands )(..
held by religious institutions.

c Expression 'service tenure' in relation to religious institution-,--{
Whether includes lands granted for performance ofw'orship. , ,.

Constitution of India, Article 26: lmpositon of assessment on land
held by religious denominational institutions-Whether violates funda- _)-- .:
mental right,
D
The proviso to s- 3(1) of the Madras lnams (Assessment) Act, 1956
provides that no assessment shaU be leviable in the case of an inam.
granted on service tenure which is proved to consist of an assignment of
land revenue only.

E Certain lands were granted to the respondent Matam by one of
the Tanjore Princes. The purpose of the grant was not known but it was
presumed to have been made for the benefit of the Matam. The original --r--
grantee was the then Jeer of the Matam. The loam Title Deed granted
in 1881 by the loam Commissioner acknowledged the title ofthe Matam
to 'a religious endowment or a Matam loam consisting of the right to
F the Government Revenue on the said land held for the support of the
Matam' and -confirmed the loam to the Manager and his successor tax ,..l..
free. ( '
I

Consequent on the enactment of the Madras loams (Assessment) t_
Act, 1956 the Revenue Divisional Officer made an order in 1963 levying
G full assessment oothe lands. The writ petition filed by the Matam
against that order was aUowed 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 loam and that it
would include any grant for the support of a religious or charitable
H institution.

232
'GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU v. AHOBILA MATAM 233

In appeal to this Court under Art. 133(I)(c) of the Constitution, it A
was contended for the respondent MataJn that .the imj>osition of full
assessment on lands held by a religious institution would be hit by Art.
26 of the Constitution.

Allowing the appeal by the State·, the Court,
B
7 HELD: The proviso to s. 3(1) of the Madras lnams (Assessment)
Act, 1956 is not applicable to lands held by religious institutions. The
inam lands in question are, therefore, liable to full assessment. [237 A]

- Three possible views have been taken of the grants made in con-
nection with religious institutions: first, that the land was granted to the
institution; secondly, that it was intended to be attached to a particular
C

--(.· office; and thirdly, that it was granted to a named individual, burdened
, . with service, the person so named happening to be the office l)older 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 D
and burdening the grant with servic~, the named individual being the
holder of an office, for the the time being, places the former in a cate-
gory different from service inams. [236C-D]

---·I
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]
E

\
Subramania v. Kailasanatha, AIR 1934 Madras 258 and Hindu
Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Thadikonda Koteswara Rao,
A_ AIR 1937 Madras 852, applied.
F
The High Court was not right in interpreting the expression
>
•_,A 'service tenure' by referring to s. 448 of the Madras Hindu Religious
Endowments Act, 1927 (Act 2 of 1927) where that expression is in fact
not .used at all. The classification of grants for the benefit of a religious
institution along with other service inams by Paragraph 54 of the Stand-
0

ing Orders ofthe 8oard of-Re.venue also does not throw any light on the G
interpretation of the expresSion 'service tenure' in. Madras · lnams
' (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 religious H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

denominational institution cannot attract the right guaranteed by Art. '-
A ~
26. The burden imposed is a burden to be shared in the same manner by
all the owners of the iands in the State and not a special burden imposed
on the denominatiomil institution. Burdens of that nature are outside
the right guaranteed by Art. 26. [237C]

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 446
~~ ~

From the Judgment and Order dated 18. l l. 1970 of the Madras
,,J'
-
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 389 of 1967.
\

M.M. Abdul Khader and A. V. Rangam for the Appellant.
c
K. Ram Kumar and Mrs. J. Ramachandran for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D 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 re-
. lates to the applicability of the Tamil Nadu Inams (Assessment) Act,
1956 in regard to some lands situated in Narasimhapuram, Papanasam
E Taluk, Thanjavur District belonging to the institution. The lands are
covered by Inam Title Deed No. 2214 dat·~ July 29, !881 granted by
the Inam Commissioner to the Manager ror the time being of Sri
Ahobila Matam. By the title deed, the Inam Commissioner, by c der
of the Governor-in-Council of Madras acting on behalf of the S. cre-
tary of State for India in Council, acknowledged the title of the/\
F Ahobila Matam to "a religious endowment or a Matam Inam consist-J I
ing 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 Poram-
boke in.the taluk of Kumbakonam District ofTanjore and held for the
support of the Ahobila Ma tam" and confirmed the Inam to the
G 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
H mentioned the original grantee as the Ahobilam Servatantra Sri
oovr. OFTAMILNADU v. AHOBILAMATAM [REDDY,J.] 235

·~
Srinivasa Swami, apparently, the then Jeer of the Matam. The recom- A
mendation 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. 2214 was issued. Consequent on the enactment
of the Madras Inams(Assessment) Act, 1956, the ReYenue Divisional
Officer, Kumbakonam made an order on February 28, 1963 levying B
full assessment on the lands. The levy of the assessment was ques-
tioned 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 ( l) of the Act prevented the levy of full assessment of
lands held on service tenure. The proviso to s. 3( l) of the Act is in the c
following terms:-
. '-f
"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 tinder this sub-section shall be
leviable, and the inamdar shall be liable to pay only the D
quit-rent, Jodi, Kattubadi or other amount of a like
nature, if any, which he has been paying before the comm-
encement of this Act."

The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Inam
was granted on 'service tenure.'. The Higb Court took the view that the E
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 chari-
table institution. For that purpose reliance was placed on the classi-
fication of lnams in the Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue. The
Standing Orders,divided inams into unenfranchised service irlams and
( ...'. unenfranchised personal inams. Under the heading of unenfranchised F
) servic.e inams, religious ,and charitable inams were dealt with in
___.I, Paragraph 54. Paragraph 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. G
Religious and charitable inams were furth'or classified and in the first
category we get inams granted for the support or maintenance of
f- Hindu religious institutions, inams granted for the performance of a
charity or service connected with Hindu religious institutions and inams
granted for any other Hindu charitable trust. In the second category
came the oth,er inams. We do not think that the classification of grants H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A 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 'service tenure' in Madras loams
Assessment Act. The expression 'service' in connection with religious
institutions has acquired a special and significant meaning and we do
n1>t think that we will be justified in ignoring the well understood
B meaning given to the expressions 'service inams' and 'service tenure'
over decades of years. We must not also forget that the object of 'J-.
Madras Inams Assessment Act was to impose full assessment on Inam
lands hitherto wholly or partly exempt from levy of land revenue. As

c
far back as 1934, the Madras High Court in Subramania v. KailasanathiJ:-{
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 institutic •.s: "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 indi-
vidual, burdened with service, the person so named, happening to be
the office-holder, at the time of the grant. This distinction between
D grants to institutions as such and grants made for the performance of
service either by attaching the service to a particular office or by nam-
ing 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. Thadikonda Kotes-
wara Rao, AIR 1937 Madras 852, a Division Bench of the Madras
E 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
naivaidyam 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/"\
F not treated as service inams but as grants in favour of institutions. Tbef '.
decision in Hindu Religious Endowments Board v. Koteswara Rao,
(supra), is the leading case on the subject and has been followed con- l
sistently 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
G 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
H be proper for us to interpret the expression 'service tenure' by refer-
GOVT.OFTAMILNADUv. AHOBILAMATAM [REDDY,J.] 237

ring s. 44B of the Madras Act 2 of 192°/ where that expression is in fact A
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 liai:Jle lo full assessment.

Shri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent argued that B
the imposition of full assessment on lands held by the religious institu-.
>: tion in the present case would be hit by Art. 26 of the Constitution
which gives to every religious denomination ·ihe right to own and
acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such pro-

- r·,
. perty in accordance with law. We are unable to understand how the mere
imposition of assess~ent on lands held by a religious denominational
institution can possibly attract the right guaranteed by the Art. 26 of C
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
-1·. special burden imposed on the denominational institution. Burden of
that nature are outside the right guaranteed by Art. 26 of the Constitu-
tion. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the orders of the learned
D
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.