Maharashtra Govt draft threatens to snatch Devasthan lands and hand them to occupants
The new draft prepared by the Maharashtra Government’s Revenue Department, signalling the transfer and granting of ownership rights of Devasthan Inam (grant or donation) lands in the names of tenants (kuls) or occupants (vahiwatdars), has raised questions over the future of Hindu temples. The lands that have, for generations, preserved the eternal lamps and offerings of temples are now being plotted for transfer to private individuals. This issue extends far beyond mere land disputes; it represents the dismantling of the financial backbone of Hindu cultural heritage and the trampling of established legal principles.
1. The owner of Devasthan land is not an ‘individual’, but the ‘Deity’
The most crucial legal provision is that Devasthan Inam land is not the ‘private property’ of any priest, the Gurav-Gosavi community, or any occupant. Under Indian law (The Indian Trusts Act and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act), an ‘idol’ or ‘Deity’ is recognised as a ‘juristic person’ (a legal living entity).
Supreme Court Judgement (2021 – Ayodhya Case and others): The highest court has clarified that a priest holds possession of the Deity’s property merely as a ‘trustee’ and is not its owner. The 7/12 land extract bears the name of the Deity, and the priests serve strictly as the ‘protectors’ of that property.
2. The legal distinction between vatan and inam
Proponents of the draft often argue that if ‘Patil’ or ‘Kulkarni’ vatans (grants) were abolished and their lands registered in the names of the tillers, why not apply the same logic to Devasthan lands? This argument is fundamentally flawed in law.
A. Patil-Kulkarni vatans: These were rewards granted to individuals in exchange for administrative services rendered to the government.
B. Devasthan inam: These are endowments given expressly for ‘religious and charitable’ purposes. Converting property given for public welfare and the Deity service into private ownership, under the guise of ‘equality’, would constitute a legal transgression.
3. The Supreme Court’s reprimand and legal obligations
In cases such as ‘Mrudangeshwar Mahadev Temple vs Maharashtra State’ and many others, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that a Devasthan Inam, once given, is permanently dedicated to the service of the Deity. It cannot be registered in the name of the person rendering that service. Under Section 32 of the Public Trusts Act, trustees possess no right to sell or transfer Devasthan property. Therefore, for whose benefit is the government seeking to privatise these lands through such legislation? Does this not amount to an open contempt of judicial orders?
4. Why different rules for Waqf properties?
This is a highly critical and discriminatory point. Under the Waqf Act 1995, Waqf properties enjoy immense legal protection and cannot be easily transferred. Waqf property is deemed to belong to ‘Allah’, with strict restrictions placed on its sale. Why, then, is the government exhibiting such ‘generosity’ solely when it comes to the lands of Hindu temples? Rather than protecting temple assets, this policy of redistribution appears to be a calculated conspiracy to cripple Hindu institutions financially.
5. Honouring priests and servitors, or looting the land?
The Gurav, Gosavi, and other priestly communities have served these temples with devotion for generations; they undoubtedly deserve to be honoured. The government could offer them an honorarium, a pension, or representation within temple management. However, registering the Deity’s land in another person’s name is not an honour; it is the destruction of religious property. Service is an act of devotion, not a commercial enterprise. If the next generation decides to sell that land, the Devasthan will be left orphaned.
6. Time to unite against the privatisation of Devasthan lands
Temples are not merely centres of faith; they are the cultural heritage of Hindus. Ownership of these lands does not belong to any single individual but to the Deity. Respecting judicial precedents, the government must formally declare temple lands as ‘non-transferable’, much like Waqf Board properties. If these lands are privatised, Hindu temples will be rendered landless, and their very existence will be imperilled. The time has come for all temple trustees, devotees, and the wider society to unite in opposition to this malicious intent. The legal truth remains absolute — temple lands cannot be privately owned; they must remain the exclusive property of the ‘Deity’ and serve a ‘public’ purpose.
Brief legal refutation
A. Doubt: Is granting proprietary rights to tenants not an act of ‘social justice’?
Answer: No. Public religious property belongs to society and the Deity. Converting it into private property is a grave social and religious injustice.
B. Doubt: Does continuous possession of the land not equate to proprietary rights?
Answer: Not at all. Any possession or encroachment upon the Deity’s land cannot be deemed ‘legal’, a principle upheld by numerous High Court judgements.
Who is trying to grab temple lands?
Today, the value of Devasthan lands situated near urban centres has skyrocketed.
Once this land is registered in the names of occupants or tenants, it will inevitably be converted into ‘Non-Agricultural’ (NA) land within a few years and sold off to the ‘builder lobby’. Where the temple’s eternal flame once burned, concrete jungles will rise. There is a profound reason to suspect — is this entire proposal not merely a sophisticated land-grabbing scheme?