Legal Assault on the Ownership Rights of Hindu Temples Through the Definitions of Inferior Holder, Mirasdar, and Land Grabbing:

Maharashtra Devasthan Inam Abolition Draft Act 2026

An analysis of the definitions contained in sub-sections (11) to (15) of Section 2 of the “Maharashtra Devasthan Inam Abolition Draft Act, 2026,” published by the Government of Maharashtra, reveals a systematic attempt in this draft to individualize the property of temples and deities, which form the core foundation of Hindu culture. According to Hindu scriptures and established law, Devasthan land belongs solely to the deity. However, the terms included in these sections are paving the way to directly convert generationally-held, service-related possession into absolute land ownership rights, thereby threatening the collective religious property of Hindu temples. The original draft of these definitions and their detailed impact in the context of Hindu law are as follows:

Inferior Holder

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

(11) “Inferior holder” means a person who is in possession of a Devasthan land whether by inheritance, or succession as Vahiwatdar or Pujari or tenant as per relevant tenancy law or otherwise and who, being liable to pay assessment in cash or kind, holds such land, whether on payment of assessment or not;

A person who has actual physical possession of Devasthan land by inheritance, as an occupant, as a priest, or as a tenant is defined as an “Inferior Holder”. Through this definition, a path has been prepared to accord an independent legal status to service-linked possession connected to the temple. This provision is completely inconsistent with established Hindu law and several rulings of the Supreme Court. According to Hindu law, Devasthan land belongs to the Deity, which is a legal persona. Priests, archakas, or managers are merely servants or trustees of the deity; they can never acquire personal ownership rights over the land. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified in numerous cases that land given to a priest is conditional upon performing temple service and is not the priest’s personal property. If the service ceases or is not performed, the land reverts to the deity. Treating a priest or occupant as an independent holder on the basis of this definition, and subsequently granting them direct ownership rights i.e. Occupant Class-1, under Section 4, amounts to denying the deity’s original right of ownership.

Inamdar

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

(12) “Inamdar” means the concerned Devasthan;

For the purposes of this Draft Act, the term “Inamdar” has been directly interpreted to mean “the concerned Devasthan”. In this definition, the draftspersons themselves have acknowledged that the original and primary Inamdar of the land is none other than the concerned Devasthan or deity itself. However, it is highly contradictory that on one hand, the Devasthan is declared as the main Inamdar, while on the other hand, through the subsequent sections of the same Act, particularly Sections 3 and 4, these Inams of the Devasthan are abolished and the land is distributed among inferior holders, tenants, or other individuals. If the Devasthan itself is the original Inamdar, the benefit of the abolition of Inam should have been received by the Devasthan to secure its property. Instead, this draft strips land rights away from the Devasthan and transfers them to individuals, which will completely fragment the collective religious wealth of Hindus and lead to the financial ruin of temples.

Land Grabbing

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

(13) “Land Grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of Devasthan land by a person who has no right, title or interest in such land, and includes any activity connected with or arising out of land grabbing.

According to this definition, the illegal occupation of temple land by a person who possesses no legal right, title, or authority constitutes “Land Grabbing”. Although this definition superficially appears to protect temple lands, the core intent of this definition is destroyed by other concessionary provisions in the Draft Act, such as the proviso to Section 5. Section 5 states that if an unauthorized holder with illegal possession has been there since before January 1, 2011, the Collector can re-grant that land to them as Occupant Class-1. This implies that instead of punishing those who illegally encroached upon temple lands, this law rewards their past illegal act and directly converts an illegal encroachment into a legal entitlement. This will boost the morale of land-grabbing syndicates, leading to the systematic usurpation of temple lands. Land grabbing is a form of offense, but through this draft law of the Maharashtra government, instead of curbing the offense, acts like land grabbing are potentially being incentivized.

Market Value

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

(14) “Market Value” means the value of such land specified in the Annual Statement of Rates published under the provision of the Bombay Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules 1995 or any other Rules for the time being in force, in this regards for the relevant year, and where such Annual Statement of Rate is not prepared or available it mean the value of such land as determine by the Assistant Director of the Town Planning Department of the concerned District.

“Market Value” refers to the price of land determined according to the government’s Ready Reckoner, i.e., the Annual Statement of Rates, or the value fixed through the Town Planning Department. This market value will be taken into consideration while regularizing land or imposing penalties on illegal holders. However, measuring the value of religious lands solely in monetary terms is flawed, as the income derived from these lands is essential for the generational management of temples and the preservation of Hindu culture.

Mirasdar

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

(15) “Mirasdar” means a person who has a right to hold land in perpetuity conditionally on the payment of the amount of land revenue for the same according to the law for the time being in force, or their heir or assignees.

A person who claims a right to hold Devasthan land permanently on the condition of paying a prescribed revenue is termed a “Mirasdar”. Similar to the term “Inferior Holder,” the term “Mirasdar” also flouts the established principles of Hindu law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that the lands of a deity are Inalienable. A person cannot claim permanent or hereditary ownership rights over the deity’s land merely because they have been paying revenue or cultivating it for years. The fundamental purpose of temple land is solely to serve the deity. Recognizing permanent rights for Mirasdars and their heirs in this manner terminates the supreme rights of the deity, which is a direct blow to the backbone of Hindu culture.

Sugriva’s Atlas Decoding the Ramayana’s Global Geography Through …

₹295

Buy on Amazon