Plot to Legally Sanction the Illegal Possession of Hindu Temples Under the Guise of the Definition of Unauthorised Holder

The provisions of the proposed Maharashtra Devasthan Inam Abolition Draft Act, 2026, introduced by the Government of Maharashtra, are legally designed to destabilize the very structure of Hindu religious institutions. A deep consideration of the definitions contained in Clause (16) to (20) of Section 2 of this Act reveals a hidden agenda to provide legal protection to elements usurping hundreds of acres of Hindu temple lands, particularly under the guise of the term ‘Unauthorised Holder’ and to individualize Devasthan property, which forms the core backbone of Hindu culture. The original draft of these definitions and their far-reaching legal implications in the context of established Hindu law are as follows:

Occupancy Price or Nazarana

According to the provisions of this draft Act:

(16) “Occupancy Price or Nazarana” means the price paid by the inferior holder or Mirasdar etc. as a occupant of land whle granting such occupancy under section 6;

When the ownership of Devasthan land is transferred to inferior holders, mirasdars, or others, the price they pay to the government or according to the prescribed rules to acquire the land is termed the ‘Occupancy Price or Nazarana’. Hindu temples and their lands are not marketable commodities. Fixing a price, i.e., a Nazarana, for God’s land and transferring it to the names of individuals amounts to denying the supreme legal existence of the deity. Granting Class-1 occupancy or absolute ownership rights upon receiving a Nazarana will permanently terminate the temples’ continuous source of income and convert the collective religious property of the Hindu community into private property.

Prescribed

According to the provisions of this draft Act:

(17) “Prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;

The rules framed by the state government for the implementation of this Act are termed ‘Prescribed’. This definition grants unlimited power behind the scenes to the bureaucracy and state administration. Many elements are left ambiguous in the principal Act and are instead relegated to these prescribed rules. The bureaucracy can formulate rules solely based on administrative convenience without taking Hindu traditions and scriptures into account, making government interference in temple land management even more oppressive in the future.

Religious Institution

According to the provisions of this draft Act:

(18) “Religious Institution” means any institution belonging to any religion; in reference to Devsthan Inam.

An institution established for a religious purpose of any religion in the context of Devasthan Inam is defined as a ‘Religious Institution’. While this definition appears inclusive on paper, Section 1(2) and Section 2(9) of the Act have already completely exempted lands falling under the Waqf Act and other specific laws. Therefore, despite the wording any religion on paper, the actual impact of this law will fall solely and exclusively upon Hindu temples, as institutions of other religions enjoy special protection under separate legislations.

Tenancy Law

According to the provisions of this draft Act:

(19) “Tenancy Law” means the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act 1950 and Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act 1958.

The older laws that regulate the rights of tenants cultivating land across different geographical regions of Maharashtra are collectively referred to as ‘Tenancy Law’. Devasthan lands are not social or commercial agricultural lands; they are permanently dedicated to the service of the deity. Applying tenancy law provisions indiscriminately to Hindu temple lands leaves the deity, who is the original owner, neglected, and looks after the interests of only the cultivating elements, which ultimately breaks the economic backbone of the temples.

Unauthorised Holder

According to the provisions of this draft Act:

(20) “Unauthorised Holder” means a person in possession of a Devasthan land under any kind of alienation thereof which is null and void under the law applicable to such land immediately before the appointed day;

A person who has come into possession of Devasthan land through a transaction that is completely illegal, null, and void under the original law itself is defined as an ‘Unauthorised Holder’, meaning an illegal occupant. This definition shields elements that pillage the collective property of Hindu Devasthans and completely flouts the established principles of Hindu law.

According to established Hindu law, Devasthan land is owned by the Deity, which is a legal person. A temple priest, manager, or trustee is merely a servant of the deity, not the owner. The Supreme Court has clarified in several landmark judgments that a priest or manager possesses no legal right to sell, mortgage, or transfer the deity’s land. Any such transfer executed by a priest is void from the very beginning i.e. void ab initio and therefore can never terminate the ownership rights of the deity.

The greatest tragedy of this draft Act is that it contains provisions under Section 5 to re-grant land and bestow ownership rights precisely upon those individuals who are deemed unauthorized and illegal under the original law. Instead of punishing illegal occupants, this draft rewards their past illegal acts. This provision directly converts encroachments on temple lands into legal entitlements. If illegally usurped lands are regularized as unauthorized holders and handed over to private individuals in this manner, the existence of Hindu temples and their collective property will be systematically destroyed. Such fragmentation of the deity’s property is a direct blow to the financial and religious backbone of Hindu culture.

12209 BCE Rama Ravana Yuddha

₹349

Buy on Amazon