Maharashtra Devasthan Inam Abolition Draft Act 2026:

An Analytical Examination of the Potential Injustice to Hindu Devasthans (Religious Trusts) Based on Definitions

The “Maharashtra Devasthan Inam Abolition Draft Act, 2026,” proposed by the Government of Maharashtra, has brought a major legal crisis upon Hindu religious institutions, temples, and their generations-old managements across the entire state. Temples are not merely spaces for worship; they are the core backbone of Hindu culture and economy. A close study of the first five definitions in Section 2 of this Draft Act reveals that these terms, which appear superficially technical, could severely undermine the lands and very existence of Hindu Devasthans in the future. A detailed analysis of these definitions, along with their original draft text and long-term legal ramifications, is presented below.

1. Appointed Day

According to the provisions of this Draft Act, the original draft of this definition is as follows:

(1) “Appointed day” means the date on which this Act shall come into force;

This simply means the day on which the State Government publishes the notification of this Act in the Official Gazette will be the “Appointed Day.” The proposed law dictates that from this day onward, all old Inams i.e. land grants of the Devasthans will officially stand abolished.

The moment it is notified, the legal protection granted to temples for hundreds of years will be destroyed in a single stroke. Under Hindu jurisprudence, temple property belongs to the deity, and a deity is legally considered a “Perpetual Minor.” The Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar (1999), clearly stated that protecting the deity’s property is the duty of the State under the principle of “Parens Patriae” (parental guardianship).[1] However, the moment this “Appointed Day” comes into effect, the process of altering land rights will commence directly without considering this protection of the deity, thereby jeopardizing the sources of income for temples.

2. Assessment

According to the provisions of this Draft Act, the original draft of this definition is as follows:

(2) “Assessment” in relation to any land means—

(a) the assessment fixed on that land under the Code, immediately before the appointed day, and

(b) where no such assessment has been fixed on the land, the amount which would have been fixed as assessment on that land in accordance with the provisions of the Code;

This means the land revenue or tax assessed or leviable on the land as per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is termed as “Assessment.”

In ancient times, Hindu kings and emperors granted lands to temples as rent-free or revenue-free famously known as Inam so that temples would not be burdened with taxes and their festivals and daily rituals could function smoothly. Under Section 3(c) of this proposed Act, all Devasthan lands will be made liable to pay land revenue. If no assessment was previously fixed on a piece of land, the government will be empowered to determine it autonomously. Consequently, temples that have no other source of income will suddenly face a massive financial burden. If this law is implemented, lands could be confiscated for non-payment of tax, creating a severe fear that the daily rituals and Naivedya i.e. food offerings of deities might cease. Applying British-era policies of taxing temple lands in independent India is inherently flawed.

3. Authorised Holder

According to the provisions of this Draft Act, the original draft of this definition is as follows:

(3) “Authorised holder” in relation to a Devasthan Inam land means a person in whom the ownership of such land has permanently vested as a result of the operation of the Tenancy Law or due to any other type of valid transfer other than the Tenancy Law;

This generally implies that any individual who has acquired permanent possession of Devasthan land through tenancy laws or any other valid legal means will be recognized as an “Authorised Holder.”

According to the fundamental principles of Hindu law, Devasthan lands belong entirely to the deity, and managers, occupants, or priests have absolutely no right to sell or permanently transfer such land. The Supreme Court, in the highly celebrated M. Siddiq famously known as Ayodhya Case judgment[2], explicitly clarified that any unauthorized transfer of the deity’s land by a manager or trustee is not binding on the deity. However, under the guise of this definition, those who have usurped temple lands in the past through tenancy laws or other invalid transfers might find a direct path to legal validation. This will effectively terminate the deity’s ownership and make the occupant the outright owner of the land. This is completely contrary to the Hindu religious sentiment of “Once a deity’s property, always a deity’s property.”

4. Ceiling Holdings

According to the provisions of this Draft Act, the original draft of this definition is as follows:

(4) “Ceiling Holdings” means the ceiling on holding land as prescribed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961;

According to this definition, the maximum limit of land an individual or institution is permitted to hold under the Land Ceiling Act of 1961 constitutes the “Ceiling Holding.”

Many large and historical Hindu temples possess hundreds of acres of land donated by devotees, which are utilized to run regular rituals, Ved Pathshalas i.e. Vedic schools, Goshalas means cow shelters where other cattle in distress or deserted, and Annachhatras means the free food kitchens. The proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of this Act states that the granted land shall not exceed the ceiling limit, and any land exceeding this limit will be vested in the government by the District Collector. If temple lands are subjected to the same ceiling limits as private individuals, cow shelters and charitable feeding centers will be forced to shut down. Constraining temples within such limits is tantamount to strangling their social and religious functions. The British previously caused immense damage to Hindu culture by shutting down the Gurukul education system. If temples today are still able to sustain Vedic schools, even on a small scale, it is solely due to such donated movable and immovable properties. To what extent will Hindu culture continue to be eroded in independent India?

5. Code

According to the provisions of this Act, the original draft of this definition is as follows:

(5) “Code” means the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966;

Literally, the “Code” refers to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 that regulates land management, taxation, and revenue administration in the State of Maharashtra.

Devasthan lands are not ordinary commercial or agricultural lands; they are deeply intertwined with spiritual and religious sentiments. By utilizing this definition, Devasthan lands are being brought directly under the purview of the Land Revenue Code. This implies that District Collectors and revenue bureaucrats will now become the arbiters of temple lands. It is a settled legal principle that revenue records are maintained solely for fiscal purposes of tax collection and cannot determine true ownership rights.[3] However, the enforcement of this Code will grant unchecked powers to the bureaucracy to dispose of temple lands, which could prove highly detrimental to the autonomy of temples and Hindu culture.

[1] Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors [AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 2131]

[2] M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das [2020 (1) SCC 1]

[3] Yash Mittal, “’Revenue Record Doesn’t Confer Title’ : Supreme Court Summarises Principles On Revenue Entries & Land Ownership” Live Law, Dt. 7.5.2026, available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/revenue-record-doesnt-confer-title-supreme-court-summarises-principles-on-revenue-entries-land-ownership-533234

When Did The Mahabharata War Happen? : The Mystery of Arundhati

Buy on Amazon