Why Lands of Temples and Religious Bodies Can Be Acquired Only in Rare and Exceptional Circumstances

A recurring question before Indian courts is whether land owned by a temple, math, mosque, church, or charitable endowment can be taken over by the State. Religious institutions frequently depend on agricultural and other lands for their very survival — much of their income often comes from land leased to tenants. Yet the State, armed with the power of eminent domain, has sought to acquire such property for public purposes. The answer that emerges from the Supreme Court is nuanced: acquisition is constitutionally permissible, but only against compensation, only for a genuine public purpose, and subject to an important caveat that acquisition must not destroy the institution itself. This post examines that framework.

The Core Constitutional Position

Under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, religious denominations enjoy the freedom to practise religion and to own, acquire, and administer property for religious and charitable purposes. But the Supreme Court has settled that these rights do not make institutional land immune from acquisition. As the Court put it:

Article 26, however, does not guarantee the freedom to establish and maintain a religious and charitable institution at a particular place or to make it immune from acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The free practice of religion presupposes the practising of it anywhere and not at any particular place. 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3096

In other words, the right to practise religion is location-neutral. Ownership of a particular parcel is not itself a protected religious freedom.

How Article 26 and the Power of Eminent Domain Coexist

There is no real conflict between Article 26 and the State's power of compulsory acquisition. Once land is validly acquired in accordance with Article 31(2) — the constitutional provision requiring acquisition for a public purpose with compensation — the institution's right of ownership comes to an end:

When, however, property is acquired by the State in accordance with law and with the provisions of Article 31(2) and the acquisition cannot be assailed on any valid ground open to the person concerned, be it a religious institution, the right to own that property vanishes as that right is transferred to the State. Thereafter there is no question of any right to own the particular property subject to public order, morality and health and Article 26 will in the circumstances be of no relevance. 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3096

The consequence is practical: religious institutions generally cannot resist acquisition merely by invoking Article 26, provided compensation is paid and due procedure is followed.

The Critical Exception: Acquisition Cannot Destroy the Institution

The most important limitation is that acquisition must not strike at the institution's existence. The Court expressly recognised this:

If, on the other hand, acquisition of property of a religious denomination by the State can be proved to be such as to destroy or completely negative its right to own and acquire movable and immovable property for even the survival of a religious institution the question may have to be examined in a different light. 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3096

This is why acquisition of religious institution lands is often described as permissible only in exceptional circumstances and as a last-resort measure. Where the taking is so extensive that it wipes out the institution's ability to sustain itself, a distinct constitutional question arises that may render the acquisition vulnerable.

Statutory Safeguards: The Assam Model

Several States have enacted special legislation to regulate such acquisitions. The Assam State Acquisition of Lands Belonging to Religious and Charitable Institutions of Public Nature Act, 1959 allows institutions to retain possession of specified categories of land — occupied lands, buildings, orchards, and lands reserved for resident devotees — free of revenue, while the State acquires the rest 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 856 and 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 770. However, the proviso to Section 5 makes the retained right non-transferable and non-alienable 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 856.

The modern central framework, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, reinforces a broader pro-caution policy. It mandates that multi-crop irrigated land shall be acquired only as a last resort measure to ensure food security 2020 5 Supreme 194 and 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 1095 and 2017 0 Supreme(Chh) 218, a principle that supports the restrictive approach to acquiring productive religious endowment lands.

A Separate Layer of Protection: Devasthan Inam Lands

Devasthan Inam lands enjoy even stronger protection. Section 8(3) of the Exemptions from Land Revenue (No.1) Act, 1863 imposes an absolute prohibition on their transfer by sale, gift, or otherwise 2025 Supreme(Bom) 756. Notably, deletion of the Devasthan entry from revenue records does not alter the land's religious character or remove this bar 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 744. Separately, State endowment statutes such as the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 regulate the management, leasing, and alienation of temple property, and courts have closely scrutinised attempts to dispose of such lands outside statutory channels 2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3286 and 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 947.

Practical Takeaways for Religious Institutions

• Acquisition is not per se unconstitutional — Articles 25 and 26 do not bar acquisition for a public purpose with compensation 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3096.
• The survival argument is the strongest line of defence — if acquisition would destroy the institution's ability to own and hold property for its existence, a different constitutional analysis applies 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 3096.
• Statutory retention rights matter — institutions should verify entitlements to retain specified lands under special acquisition statutes like the Assam Act of 1959 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 856.
• Check compensation and annuity provisions — the institution is entitled to compensation, and in some cases a permanent annuity, as required by the relevant statute.
• Devasthan Inam lands are doubly protected — the absolute transfer bar under Section 8(3) of the 1863 Act survives even changes in revenue records 2025 Supreme(Bom) 756 and 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 744.

Conclusion

Indian law does not treat religious institution lands as untouchable, but neither does it allow the State free rein. Acquisition is generally valid when it serves a public purpose, follows due procedure, and provides compensation — yet it must remain an exceptional, last-resort measure, because an acquisition that would erase a religious institution's very capacity to survive may well be constitutionally impermissible. Institutions facing acquisition should focus on the survival exception, statutory retention entitlements, and compensation safeguards. This article is general information and does not constitute specific legal advice; outcomes depend on the facts and the governing statute in each case.