GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU versus AHOBILA MATAM

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 17-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 
E 
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. 
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 
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 
--r--
Consequent on the enactment of the Madras loams (Assessment) 
Act, 1956 the Revenue Divisional Officer made an order in 1963 levying 
t_ 
G full assessment oo the 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 
C 
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 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 
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] 
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 
E 
considered as lands subject tO service tenure. [234H, 236G] 
> 
•_,A 
\ 
Subramania v. Kailasanatha, AIR 1934 Madras 258 and Hindu 
Religious Endowments Board, Madras v. Thadikonda Koteswara Rao, 
A_ AIR 1937 Madras 852, applied. 
The High Court was not right in interpreting the expression 
'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-
ing Orders ofthe
08oard of-Re.venue also does not throw any light on the 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.