ivil Appeal No 446 of 1973 From the Judgment and Order dated 18111970 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No 389 of 1967
MM Abdul Khader and AV 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 article 1331c 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 some lands situated in Narasimhapuram Papanasam Taluk Thanjavur District belonging to the institution
The lands are covered by Inam Title Deed No2214 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 2811 cents of dry 5838 acres of wet and 683 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 InamsAssessment 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 s3 1 of the Act pre vented the levy of full assessment of lands held on service tenure
The proviso to section 31 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 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 vs 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 vs Thadi konda Koteswara Rao  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 vs 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 section 44B 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 section 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 section 31 is inapplicable to lands held by religious institutions and therefore the lands are liable to full assessment
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 article 26 of the Constitution which gives to every religiousdenomination 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 article 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 article 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
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The proviso to section 31 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 section 31 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 article 1331c of the Constitution it was contended for the respondent Matam that the imposition of full assessment on lands held by a reli gions institution would be hit by article 26 of the Constitu tion
Allowing the appeal by the State the Court HELD The proviso to section 31 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 vs Kailasanatha AIR 1934 Madras 258 and Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madras vs Thadikonda Koteswara Rao  applied
The High Court was not right in interpreting the expres sion service tenure  by referring to section 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 article 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 article 26
237C