The Maharashtra authorities’s proposed Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026 has sparked contemporary debate over the way forward for temple lands within the state and who ought to legally handle them. Right here, let’s check out why the invoice seeks to abolish the outdated Devasthan Inam system and why temple trusts and Hindu organizations are strongly against this transfer.
Traditionally, kings and monarchs gave land to temples and non secular websites to carry out rituals, preserve temples, and assist clergymen and caretakers.
These grants had been referred to as Devasthan Inams. Typically monks cultivated the land, tenants farmed it, villagers constructed homes on it, and hereditary stewards managed it for many years.
Not like another types of inam lands that had been abolished after independence, Devasthan inams in Maharashtra continued with a mixture of outdated income guidelines, tenancy legal guidelines, and belief rules. Over time, confusion arose as to who really managed these lands: temple trusts, cultivators, occupiers, and custodians.
At present, huge tracts of land in Devasthan are embroiled in disputes involving tenants, long-term occupiers, and alleged encroachments. In line with authorities estimates, the whole extent of those lands is within the vary of 100,000 hectares, whereas temple trusts put the determine at greater than 400,000 hectares.
What’s the authorities proposing now?
The Authorities of Maharashtra has proposed the Maharashtra Devasthan Inam Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026. This goals to abolish the outdated Devasthan Inam system, by which land for temples and non secular amenities was traditionally granted and ruled. The proposed legislation would abolish the historic inam-based land possession construction and convey such lands underneath the Maharashtra Land Income Act.
The invoice additionally seeks to outline who can proceed to legally occupy or domesticate these lands. An necessary a part of this proposal consists of classes resembling pujari, vahiwat dar, and miras dar, all of which have historically been related to the administration and cultivation of temple lands.
A pujari is a priest who performs rituals and non secular ceremonies at temples, and traditionally additionally cultivated temple land, usually hooked up to shrines.
The Vahiwadar is basically the custodian or custodian of the temple property and affairs, and is accountable for overseeing the land, sustaining information, and overseeing day-to-day administration on behalf of the deity or temple belief.
A mirasdar, alternatively, is a hereditary cultivator or resident whose household might have cultivated the temple land for generations.
Traditionally, courts have usually held that pujaris, vahiwadars, and mirasdars might handle, domesticate, and occupy temple lands, however that authorized possession of such lands rests with the deity or temple group. Nonetheless, the proposed invoice seeks to acknowledge sure classes of such occupiers and cultivators as eligible for occupier class I rights to the land they occupy or domesticate.
The federal government additionally proposes to grant such rights to a number of different classes of occupiers, together with authorized tenants and approved house owners. Beneath the Land Act of Maharashtra, an occupier’s Class I rights are necessary as a result of they’re heritable and transferable, successfully giving the occupier long-term authorized management over the land.
Why is the federal government so eager to introduce this invoice now?
The Maharashtra authorities mentioned the proposed legislation would assist resolve the long-pending dispute over Devasthan Inam land and make clear the rights of cultivators, occupiers and temple trusts.
Income Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankuru mentioned the invoice was aimed toward addressing disputes over huge devasthan lands throughout Maharashtra and asserted that “the proposed legislation doesn’t take away devasthan lands from temples.”
Why is the temple belief opposed?
The draft doesn’t specify that possession of the temple will finish.
Nonetheless, temple organizations argue that after an occupier obtains Class I occupancy rights, temple trusts might step by step lose efficient management over giant parts of temple land already occupied by others.
Their argument is that regularization may successfully put land donated to temples for non secular functions over the centuries into non-public palms.
Nonetheless, the state authorities seems to be taking the place that many residents have lived or cultivated these lands for generations with out authorized rights and can’t stay trapped in authorized uncertainty without end.
Why is the “wrongful holder” clause attracting criticism?
This emerged as probably the most controversial provisions of the proposed legislation.
The draft legislation permits sure “unauthorized house owners” – folks occupying land in Devasthan with out formal authorized title – to use for land re-grant if they’ve been in steady occupation since earlier than January 1, 2011, if eviction would trigger hardship, and in the event that they pay an occupation payment or market worth decided by the authorities.
Temple organizations and Hindu teams strongly opposed the availability, arguing that it may successfully legalize a long time of encroachment on temple lands by giving authorized rights to individuals who had been by no means acknowledged as authorized occupiers within the first place.
Nonetheless, the federal government seems to be making a distinction between long-established occupations and new invasions. The rationale behind the proposal is that many households have lived or cultivated such land for generations, and a large-scale eviction motion may set off prolonged authorized battles and social unrest.
The draft legislation thus seeks to create a truncation whereby, underneath sure circumstances, outdated occupations present earlier than 2011 could also be topic to regularization, whereas future encroachments after the legislation takes impact could also be topic to strict anti-land grabbing provisions, together with eviction, fines and imprisonment.
What occurs to homes constructed on temple grounds?
The invoice features a separate provision for Gaosan areas, or village settlement areas, the place homes have been constructed for many years on land in Devasthan, many with out clear title.
Beneath this proposal, if a household constantly lived on temple land in a village settlement earlier than January 1, 2011, it may doubtlessly qualify for Class I occupancy rights with out paying nazarana or occupancy charges.
In sensible phrases, because of this long-term everlasting residents can get hold of formal authorized rights to the land on which their residence stands.
The supply may have an effect on 1000’s of properties throughout Maharashtra, the place households have lived on temple grounds for generations however possession and occupancy rights stay disputed or unclear.
Does the legislation crack down on land grabbing?
Whereas the draft proposal proposes regularizing sure outdated occupations underneath sure circumstances, it additionally introduces strict provisions in opposition to future encroachments on Devastan lands.
The proposed legislation would create a separate crime referred to as “land grabbing” and, as soon as the legislation comes into power, give income authorities extra powers to behave in opposition to unlawful occupation of temple properties.
The invoice proposes imprisonment for 2 to 5 years, fines as much as the market worth of the land, abstract eviction powers for collectors, and cancellation of unlawful gross sales, transfers and lease transactions involving expropriated temple land.
What occurs subsequent?
The invoice is presently open for public feedback and strategies till June fifth.
After contemplating the suggestions acquired from temple trusts, non secular our bodies, occupiers, authorized specialists and the general public, the Maharashtra authorities might revise sure provisions earlier than formally introducing them in Parliament.
