Mumbai, Maharashtra – A legislative proposal by the Maharashtra government, the Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026, has ignited a fervent debate across the state, bringing to the forefront intricate questions of land ownership, religious endowment, and social justice. At its core, the draft legislation seeks to dismantle an ancient land tenure system, Devasthan Inams, which has governed vast tracts of temple lands for centuries, and introduce a new framework under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. While the government asserts the move will resolve long-standing disputes and bring clarity, temple trusts and Hindu organisations are vociferously opposing it, fearing a gradual erosion of their control over sacred assets and a potential legitimisation of encroachments.
The sheer scale of the land involved is staggering, with government estimates ranging from one lakh (100,000) hectares, while temple trusts contend the figure is over four lakh (400,000) hectares. This significant disparity underscores the depth of the historical ambiguity and the profound implications of any legislative change. The proposed law, currently open for public feedback, aims to redefine who legally controls and occupies these lands, a move that could alter the landscape of religious endowments and property rights in Maharashtra for generations to come.
The Heart of the Matter: Control and Ownership
The central contention revolves around the legal and practical control of lands historically granted to deities and religious institutions. For centuries, these lands have sustained temples, supported priests, and fostered religious activities. The draft Act, by proposing to grant Occupant Class-I rights to certain categories of occupants and regularise older "unauthorised" holdings, threatens to shift effective control from the deity (represented by the temple trust) to individual cultivators, residents, and even those previously without formal legal standing. This fundamental shift has profound implications for the financial autonomy of temples, the preservation of religious heritage, and the sanctity of lands donated for spiritual purposes.
A Deep Dive into History: The Legacy of Devasthan Inams
To comprehend the current debate, one must delve into the historical tapestry of land grants in India. The system of ‘Inams’ – a Persian term meaning ‘gift’ or ‘reward’ – was a prevalent feature of land administration during various historical periods, including the Maratha Empire and British colonial rule. These were grants of land or revenue made by rulers to individuals or institutions, often in perpetuity, without requiring payment of land revenue.
Royal Grants and Evolving Tenures
Historically, kings, princely rulers, and even wealthy patrons granted lands to temples, mosques, dargahs, and other religious institutions. These Devasthan (temple) Inams were not merely acts of generosity but served multiple purposes:
- Religious Merit: Rulers often made such grants to accumulate religious merit and secure divine blessings.
- Maintenance of Institutions: The revenue generated from these lands was crucial for the upkeep of temples, the performance of daily rituals (puja), celebrations of festivals, and the general administration of the religious establishment.
- Support for Priests and Caretakers: A significant portion of these lands was intended to provide sustenance for priests (pujaris), administrators (vahiwatdars), and other caretakers, ensuring the continuity of religious services.
- Social Stability: These grants also served as a form of social welfare, supporting communities attached to religious sites.
Under the Devasthan Inam system, priests often cultivated portions of the land, tenants farmed other sections, villagers built homes, and hereditary caretakers managed the overall property. The legal ownership, however, was generally vested in the deity or the religious institution, with the occupants holding usufructuary rights or tenancy, rather than proprietary ownership. This distinction, while clear in principle, often blurred in practice over generations, leading to complex and often unrecorded arrangements.
Post-Independence Anomalies and Persistent Ambiguity
Following India’s independence in 1947, a wave of land reforms swept across the nation, aimed at abolishing intermediary tenures and empowering cultivators. Various forms of Inams, such as personal Inams, service Inams, and Saranjam Inams, were systematically abolished in Maharashtra through legislations like the Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952, and the Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community) Abolition Act, 1953. These acts aimed to bring these lands directly under the state’s revenue administration, regularising the rights of cultivators and tenants.
However, Devasthan Inams largely escaped comprehensive abolition. They continued to be governed by a complex and often contradictory mosaic of old revenue rules, tenancy laws (like the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948), and trust regulations (like the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950). This piecemeal approach, rather than resolving the inherent ambiguities, exacerbated them. Over time, this created a labyrinthine legal landscape where it became exceedingly difficult to ascertain clear ownership and occupancy rights. Who truly controlled these lands – the temple trust, the cultivator, the long-term occupant, or the hereditary caretaker – remained a perennial question, leading to a multitude of unresolved disputes.
Today, this historical legacy has resulted in large amounts of Devasthan lands being entangled in protracted legal battles. These disputes involve a diverse set of claimants, including long-term tenants, hereditary occupants, and alleged encroachers. The disparate estimates of the total land area further highlight the lack of a clear, consolidated record and the pressing need for legislative intervention, albeit one that is equitable and sensitive to all stakeholders.
The Proposed Legislation: Reshaping Land Governance
The Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026, represents the state government’s most ambitious attempt to date to untangle this Gordian knot. The core objective of the proposed law is to formally abolish the antiquated Devasthan Inam system and integrate these lands into the mainstream land administration framework governed by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Abolishing the Old System: Integration with Revenue Code
By bringing Devasthan Inam lands under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the government intends to streamline their administration, clarify land records, and facilitate more efficient governance. This move would subject these lands to standard revenue collection procedures, land use regulations, and other provisions applicable to all other land parcels in the state. For the state, this could potentially mean better management of land resources, improved revenue collection, and reduced administrative complexities arising from the fragmented nature of the current system.
Defining Occupancy: Pujaris, Vahiwatdars, and Mirasdars
A crucial aspect of the draft law is its attempt to define and categorise who can legally continue occupying or cultivating these lands, recognising the deep historical and social ties many individuals and families have to these properties. The proposal specifically identifies and addresses three key traditional categories:
- Pujaris: These are the priests who perform rituals and religious ceremonies within the temple. Historically, many pujaris were not only spiritual leaders but also cultivators of temple lands attached to the shrine, using the produce for their sustenance and temple expenses. The draft law seeks to recognise their long-standing connection to the land.
- Vahiwatdars: Essentially the managers, administrators, or trustees of temple property and affairs, vahiwatdars have historically been responsible for supervising temple lands, maintaining records, and overseeing the day-to-day management on behalf of the deity or temple trust. Their role often involved a fiduciary duty to the temple.
- Mirasdars: A mirasdar is a hereditary cultivator or occupant whose family may have cultivated temple land for generations. Their claims are rooted in a long lineage of occupation, often predating modern land record systems.
Historically, legal precedents have generally affirmed that while these categories of individuals may manage, cultivate, or occupy temple lands, the ultimate legal ownership (or title) rests with the deity or the temple institution itself. The proposed draft law, however, marks a significant departure by seeking to recognise certain categories of such occupants and cultivators as eligible for Occupant Class-I rights over the specific lands they occupy or cultivate.
The Power of Occupant Class-I Rights
Under Maharashtra’s land law, Occupant Class-I rights are highly significant and represent the most secure form of land tenure available to private individuals. These rights are:
- Heritable: They can be passed down to legal heirs, ensuring continuity of ownership within families.
- Transferable: The holder can freely sell, mortgage, lease, or otherwise transfer the land without requiring permission from revenue authorities, unlike Occupant Class-II rights.
Effectively, granting Occupant Class-I rights to individuals or families traditionally linked to temple lands would confer upon them long-term, secure legal control over those parcels. This fundamentally transforms their relationship with the land from that of a caretaker, tenant, or manager to that of a full-fledged proprietor, with all the associated rights and responsibilities. The government also proposes extending these rights to several other categories, including lawful tenants and authorised holders, further broadening the scope of individuals who could gain proprietary control.
The State’s Stance: Resolving Disputes, Not Seizing Assets
The Maharashtra government has articulated its rationale for introducing this complex legislation, primarily citing the need to resolve the pervasive and long-pending disputes surrounding Devasthan Inam lands. Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule has been a vocal proponent, asserting that the proposed law aims to bring much-needed clarity to the rights of cultivators, occupants, and temple trusts alike.
Bringing Clarity to a Complex Landscape
Minister Bawankule has explicitly stated that the "proposed act does not take away devasthan lands" from temples. The government’s argument appears to hinge on the idea that the current state of affairs, characterised by fragmented control, ambiguous records, and endless litigation, serves no one effectively. By regularising occupancy and granting clear rights, the state hopes to:
- Reduce Litigation: Streamline the legal process and decrease the burden on courts by settling historical claims.
- Facilitate Development: Clear titles enable easier transactions, development, and investment in these lands, which are often stagnant due to ownership uncertainties.
- Empower Occupants: Provide legal security and economic empowerment to families who have lived and toiled on these lands for generations without formal rights.
- Improve Land Records: Modernise and update the state’s land revenue records, making them more accurate and transparent.
The government’s perspective is that while legal ownership might nominally rest with the deity, the practical control is already fragmented. Therefore, by formalising the de facto occupancy, the state is not "taking away" land but rather legitimising existing realities and providing a legal framework for them.
Temple Trusts and Hindu Organisations: A Vocal Opposition
Despite the government’s assurances, temple trusts, various Hindu organisations, and devotees have expressed strong opposition to the draft legislation. Their concerns stem from a deep apprehension that the law, while not explicitly ending temple ownership, will lead to a gradual and irreversible loss of effective control over vast portions of their land.
The Erosion of Religious Endowments
The primary argument put forth by the opponents is that lands donated to temples over centuries were specifically intended for religious purposes – for the sustenance of the deity, the performance of rituals, the maintenance of temple structures, and the propagation of religious and cultural activities. Granting Occupant Class-I rights to individuals, they contend, would effectively transform these sacred endowments into private property. This, they fear, could lead to:
- Commercialisation of Sacred Lands: Once private individuals gain full proprietary rights, there is a risk that these lands, some of which are located in prime urban or semi-urban areas, could be sold off for commercial development, deviating entirely from their original religious intent.
- Loss of Temple Income: Many temples rely on the income generated from agricultural or leased lands to fund their operations. If these lands pass into private hands, the temples would lose a vital source of revenue, potentially crippling their ability to maintain themselves and conduct religious services.
- Disruption of Religious Practices: The presence of a temple is often intrinsically linked to its surrounding lands. A change in ownership could disrupt traditional arrangements, access for devotees, and the overall spiritual ecosystem of the temple.
Protecting Donor Intent and Institutional Autonomy
Opponents argue that the bill disregards the ‘donor intent’ – the original purpose for which the land was gifted. They see it as a violation of the sanctity of religious endowments and a precedent for state interference in the management of religious institutions. Furthermore, they contend that the law undermines the autonomy of temple trusts, which are legally mandated to protect and manage the assets of the deity. The regularisation of occupations, particularly those deemed "unauthorised," is viewed as an unjust reward for encroachers at the expense of legitimate religious institutions.
The "Unauthorised Holder" Conundrum: A Divisive Provision
Perhaps the most contentious provision within the draft law is the clause addressing "unauthorised holders." This provision has drawn sharp criticism from temple organisations, who see it as a backdoor to legitimise long-standing encroachments on temple properties.
Balancing Social Justice with Property Rights
The draft allows certain "unauthorised holders" – essentially, people occupying Devasthan land without formal legal rights – to apply for re-grant of the land under specific conditions. These conditions include:
- Continuous possession before January 1, 2011.
- Demonstration that eviction would cause undue hardship.
- Payment of occupancy charges or market value as determined by authorities.
Temple organisations vehemently object to this, arguing that it effectively rewards illegal occupation. They believe it sets a dangerous precedent, undermining the concept of property rights and encouraging future encroachments, as it signals that illegal occupation, if sustained long enough, might eventually be legalised.
The 2011 Cut-off: A Pragmatic Compromise?
The government, however, appears to be making a crucial distinction between historical, long-settled occupations and fresh encroachments. The reasoning behind the 2011 cut-off date is pragmatic: it aims to address complex socio-economic realities where many families have been living or cultivating these lands for generations, often in good faith, without clear legal titles. Large-scale eviction drives against such long-term occupants could trigger widespread social unrest, prolonged legal battles, and humanitarian crises.
By creating a cut-off date, the government seeks to draw a line in the sand. Older occupations that existed before January 1, 2011, may be considered for regularisation under specific conditions, acknowledging the historical context and potential hardship. Conversely, any future encroachment on Devasthan lands after the law comes into force would attract stringent anti-land grabbing provisions, including immediate eviction, heavy fines, and imprisonment, sending a clear message against new illegal occupations. This dual approach attempts to balance historical injustice and social welfare with the need to protect temple assets moving forward.
Securing Homes: Addressing Gaothan Settlements
Another significant aspect of the draft law addresses the issue of residential properties located within Gaothan (village settlement) areas that stand on Devasthan land. For decades, thousands of families across Maharashtra have built homes in these areas without clear ownership titles, living in a state of perpetual legal uncertainty.
Relief for Long-Term Residential Occupants
The draft law contains a separate, more lenient provision for such residential occupants. If a family has been living continuously on temple land within a village settlement before January 1, 2011, they may become eligible for Occupant Class-I rights without having to pay nazarana (a premium or occupancy charge) or other occupancy fees.
In practical terms, this provision offers immense relief to thousands of residential occupants who have lived for generations on temple lands but whose ownership and occupancy rights have remained disputed or unclear. This move aims to provide formal legal security for their homes, allowing them to gain full proprietary rights over the land on which their houses stand. This can have transformative socio-economic impacts, enabling these families to access credit, invest in property improvements, and ensure generational security without the looming threat of eviction or the burden of payment.
A Shield Against Future Land Grabbing
While the draft law proposes to regularise certain old occupations under specific conditions, it also introduces robust and stringent provisions against future encroachments on Devasthan lands. This reflects the government’s stated intention to protect temple properties once the historical ambiguities are resolved.
New Powers, Stricter Penalties
The proposed law creates a separate, specific offence of "land grabbing" pertaining to Devasthan properties. It vests revenue authorities, particularly the Collector, with significantly stronger powers to act swiftly and decisively against illegal occupation of temple assets once the law comes into force. The penalties are designed to be a strong deterrent:
- Imprisonment: Ranging from two to five years.
- Fines: That can extend up to the market value of the illegally occupied land.
- Summary Eviction Powers: For the Collector, allowing for quicker action without lengthy judicial processes.
- Cancellation of Illegal Transactions: Any illegal sale, transfer, or lease transactions involving grabbed temple lands would be summarily cancelled.
This dual approach—addressing historical occupations while simultaneously strengthening enforcement against future land grabbing—is a key characteristic of the proposed legislation. It aims to prevent a recurrence of the very issues it seeks to resolve, by providing a clear legal framework and powerful deterrents.
The Road Ahead: Public Debate and Legislative Scrutiny
The Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026, has been published for public objections and suggestions, with a deadline of June 5. This crucial period allows all stakeholders – temple trusts, religious organisations, current occupants, legal experts, social activists, and the general public – to provide their feedback, concerns, and recommendations.
Shaping the Final Law
Following the public consultation period, the Maharashtra government will undertake the task of reviewing the vast array of feedback received. This review process is critical and could lead to significant revisions of certain provisions within the draft. The government will need to carefully weigh the competing interests and arguments, striving to find a balance that addresses historical grievances, ensures social justice, protects religious endowments, and establishes a clear, sustainable land administration framework.
Once the revisions are incorporated, the bill will be formally introduced in the Maharashtra State Legislature. Its journey through the legislative process is likely to be met with intense debate, given the sensitive nature of religious lands and property rights. The political ramifications are significant, as the issue touches upon cultural identity, religious sentiment, and the economic well-being of millions.
Should the bill pass through both houses of the legislature and receive gubernatorial assent, it will become law. However, even then, the possibility of judicial review remains, as aggrieved parties may challenge its constitutional validity or specific provisions in the courts. The Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 2026, if enacted, promises to be a landmark piece of legislation, fundamentally altering the relationship between state, religion, and land in one of India’s most populous states. Its ultimate form and impact will be shaped by the ongoing public discourse and the wisdom of its legislative architects.
