Decode Politics: Who should control temple land? A Maharashtra draft law triggers row

Historically, kings and princely rulers granted land to temples and religious institutions for conducting rituals, maintaining temples and supporting priests and caretakers.

These grants were called Devasthan Inams. In many cases, priests cultivated the land, tenants farmed it, villagers built homes on it, and hereditary caretakers managed it for decades.

Unlike several other forms of inam lands that were abolished after Independence, Devasthan Inams in Maharashtra continued under a mix of old revenue rules, tenancy laws and trust regulations. Over time, this created confusion over who actually controlled these lands – the temple trust, the cultivator, the occupant or the caretaker.

Today, large amounts of Devasthan lands are tied up in disputes involving tenants, long-term occupants and alleged encroachments. As per government estimates, the total spread of these lands ranges from one lakh hectare but temple trusts put the figure at over four lakh hectares.

What is the government now proposing?

The Maharashtra government has proposed the Maharashtra Devasthan Inams Abolition (Draft) Act, 2026, which seeks to abolish the old Devasthan Inam system under which temple and religious institution lands were historically granted and governed. The proposed law would end the historical inam-based land tenure structure and bring such lands under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

The draft law also attempts to define who can legally continue occupying or cultivating these lands. A key part of the proposal involves categories such as pujaris, vahiwatdars and mirasdars, all of whom have traditionally been linked to the management or cultivation of temple lands.

A pujari is the priest who performs rituals and religious ceremonies in a temple and, in many cases historically, also cultivated temple lands attached to the shrine.

A vahiwatdar is essentially the manager or administrator of temple property and affairs, responsible for supervising land, maintaining records and overseeing day-to-day management on behalf of the deity or temple trust.

A mirasdar, meanwhile, is a hereditary cultivator or occupant whose family may have cultivated temple land for generations.

Historically, courts have generally held that while pujaris, vahiwatdars and mirasdars may manage, cultivate or occupy temple lands, the legal ownership of such lands rests with the deity or temple institution. However, the proposed draft law seeks to recognise certain categories of such occupants and cultivators as eligible for Occupant Class-I rights over the lands they occupy or cultivate.

The government also proposes granting such rights to several other categories of occupants, including lawful tenants and authorised holders. Under Maharashtra’s land law, Occupant Class-I rights are significant because they are heritable and transferable, effectively giving occupants long-term legal control over the land.

Why is the government keen on bringing the law now?

The Maharashtra government has said the proposed law helps resolve long-pending disputes surrounding Devasthan Inam lands and brings clarity to the rights of cultivators, occupants and temple trusts.

Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule has said the proposed legislation is aimed at addressing disputes over large tracts of Devasthan land across Maharashtra and has maintained that the “proposed act does not take away devasthan lands” from temples.

Why are temple trusts objecting?

The draft does not explicitly state that temple ownership will end.

However, temple organisations argue that once occupants receive Occupant Class-I rights, temple trusts could gradually lose effective control over large portions of temple land already occupied by others.

Their argument is that lands donated to temples over centuries for religious purposes could effectively pass into private hands through regularisation.

The state government, however, appears to be taking the position that many occupants have lived or cultivated these lands for generations without legal rights and cannot remain indefinitely trapped in legal uncertainty.

Why is the “unauthorised holder” clause drawing criticism?

This has emerged as one of the most controversial provisions in the proposed law.

The draft allows certain “unauthorised holders” essentially people occupying Devasthan land without formal legal rights to apply for regrant of the land if they have been in continuous possession before January 1, 2011, if eviction would cause hardship, and if they pay occupancy charges or market value fixed by the authorities.

Temple organisations and Hindu groups have strongly objected to this provision, arguing that it could effectively legitimise decades-old encroachments on temple lands by granting legal rights to people who were never recognised as lawful occupants in the first place.

The government, however, appears to be making a distinction between old, long-settled occupation and fresh encroachments. The reasoning behind the proposal is that many families have been living or cultivating such lands for generations, and large-scale eviction drives could trigger prolonged legal battles and social unrest.

The draft therefore attempts to create a cut-off: older occupations that existed before 2011 may be considered for regularisation under certain conditions, while any future encroachment after the law comes into force would attract stringent anti-land grabbing provisions, including eviction, fines and imprisonment.

What happens to the houses built on temple land?

The draft law contains a separate provision for Gaothan or village settlement areas, many of which have homes built on Devasthan land for decades without clear ownership titles.

Under the proposal, if a family has been living continuously on temple land in a village settlement before January 1, 2011, they may become eligible for Occupant Class-I rights without having to pay nazarana or occupancy charges.

In practical terms, this means long-settled residential occupants could receive formal legal rights over the land on which their homes stand.

This provision could impact thousands of residential properties across Maharashtra where families have lived for generations on temple lands but ownership and occupancy rights have remained disputed or unclear.

Does the law crack down on land grabbing?

Even while the draft proposes regularising certain old occupations under specific conditions, it also introduces stringent provisions against future encroachments on Devasthan lands.

The proposed law creates a separate offence of “land grabbing” and gives revenue authorities stronger powers to act against illegal occupation of temple properties once the law comes into force.

It proposes imprisonment ranging from two to five years, fines that can extend up to the market value of the land, summary eviction powers for the Collector and cancellation of illegal sale, transfer or lease transactions involving grabbed temple lands.

What happens next?

The draft law has currently been published for public objections and suggestions until June 5.

After reviewing the feedback received from temple trusts, religious organisations, occupants, legal experts and members of the public, the Maharashtra government may revise certain provisions before formally introducing it in the legislature.