At a special conclave of temple trustees convened by Maharashtra Mandir Mahasangh in Ratnagiri, Shri. Ramesh Shinde called on the Maharashtra Government to permanently withdraw the proposed Devasthan Inam Abolition Act and to replace it with a purpose-built Devasthan Land Protection Act designed to safeguard temple lands against encroachment and indiscriminate government acquisition. The appeal, grounded in constitutional principles and heritage protection, reflected a growing consensus among trustees that devotional infrastructure and community services depend on the legal and physical integrity of Devasthan lands.

Temple endowments—historically recognized as Devasthan inam lands—were granted to sustain worship, annadāna, learning, conservation of sacred precincts, and public welfare in surrounding settlements. In many towns and rural belts, these lands remain the financial backbone of Hindu temples and associated cultural institutions; similar patterns of endowment-based sustenance exist across dharmic traditions such as Buddhist viharas, Jain derasars, and Sikh gurdwaras. When the tenure and title of these lands are unsettled or eroded, daily puja, maintenance, community kitchens, and educational outreach are the first to suffer.

The constitutional and statutory frame underscores the gravity of the issue. Article 25 safeguards freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, while Article 26 guarantees to religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion and to own and acquire property. Property is further protected under Article 300A, requiring due process for deprivation. Within Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPTA), regulates charitable and religious trusts; land acquisition is governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR 2013). Any change that destabilizes temple land tenure has cascading implications for religious autonomy, property rights, and heritage conservation.

While details of the proposed Devasthan Inam Abolition Act have not been publicly circulated at scale, analogous inām abolition regimes historically converted certain revenue-free grants into other tenures or extinguished privileges, sometimes triggering protracted disputes over title, possession, and usufruct. Temple trustees in multiple regions have reported that such transitions, when insufficiently tailored to the unique character of religious endowments, can inadvertently facilitate fragmentation, alienation, or encroachment of sacred properties. The concern advanced in Ratnagiri is that a generic abolition approach could weaken—not strengthen—the capacity of religious endowments to serve public and spiritual purposes.

Accordingly, the call for a Devasthan Land Protection Act argues for a precise, protection-oriented statute rather than a dissolution framework. A robust protection law would: (1) establish an authoritative, GIS-verified register of all Devasthan lands and appurtenant rights; (2) provide time-bound title settlement and mutation, with presumptions favoring long-recognized endowment use where records corroborate; (3) create specialized encroachment prevention cells with powers to issue notices, conduct surveys, and seek swift relief; (4) require a heightened public purpose test and transparent consultations for any proposed government acquisition, ensuring compliance with LARR 2013; (5) mandate digital cadastral integration with Mahabhulekh (Maharashtra’s land record system) and Bhu-Naksha layers to prevent inadvertent overlaps; (6) constitute designated courts or tribunals for religious endowment property disputes; (7) bar unauthorized alienation, mortgage, or long-term leasing that conflicts with the trust’s objectives; and (8) include a non-derogation clause affirming that the statute supplements rather than dilutes MPTA and constitutional protections under Article 26.

Effective land protection is inseparable from governance quality. Trusteeship standards, conflict-of-interest safeguards, public disclosure of audits, and participatory decision-making enhance institutional credibility. A protection statute can embed transparent procedures for asset management, including professional valuation for any permissible leases, ringfencing of proceeds for religious and community service, and annual reporting on land use, pending litigation, and enforcement actions.

Equally important is parity of protection across religious traditions. The Waqf Act, 1995, for example, codifies specific encroachment-removal procedures and institutional oversight for waqf properties. Ensuring that dharmic endowments—including Hindu temples, Buddhist viharas, Jain derasars, and Sikh gurdwaras—are afforded comparable clarity and protective mechanisms promotes both constitutional equality and practical fairness. Harmonized, tradition-sensitive statutes reduce legal asymmetries and minimize forum shopping by encroachers.

Technology can significantly strengthen this framework. Systematic digitization of archival sanads, revenue records, copper-plate grants, and British-era settlement documents, paired with ground-truthing surveys and drone or satellite imagery, helps resolve boundary ambiguities. Integration with Mahabhulekh and geo-referencing of boundary stones, water bodies, and sacred groves surrounding shrines can deter clandestine alterations. A secure digital dashboard for trustees, district administrations, and courts can accelerate case tracking and reduce procedural bottlenecks.

Encroachment prevention must be paired with humane and lawful remedies. The law should distinguish between good-faith occupants lacking documentation, willful trespassers, and organized land-grab networks. Where livelihoods are involved and occupants acted in good faith, due rehabilitation pathways consistent with LARR 2013 can be incorporated, provided the endowment’s integrity is restored and religious functions are not impaired. For willful or repeated violations, expedited eviction and penalties are essential to deter future transgressions.

Trustees frequently recount the lived realities that do not show up in ledgers: night watches to guard boundary stones, years of litigation over a few guntas abutting a temple tank, or the slow narrowing of ceremonial processional routes. In coastal belts and forest-fringe areas, additional layers—such as coastal regulation norms or forest and revenue demarcations—can complicate tenure certainty. A dedicated protection law that clarifies inter-departmental coordination and codifies a single-window mechanism would meaningfully reduce these frictions.

Because temples often steward biodiversity-rich groves, water tanks, and agrarian commons attached to shrines, a protection statute should recognize ecological services as part of endowment objectives. Provisions enabling climate-resilient agriculture on temple farmlands, restoration of temple tanks, and community access to sacred commons—subject to conservation norms—align spiritual practice with environmental stewardship and public benefit.

Comparative lessons from other Indian states indicate the value of comprehensive property registers, mandatory inventories, and specialized forums for endowment disputes. Yet, one-size-fits-all frameworks often falter when local tenure customs, regional record-keeping legacies, and distinct ritual needs are ignored. A Maharashtra-specific Devasthan Land Protection Act, anchored in the MPTA ecosystem and tailored to regional administrative practice, would blend national best practices with local realities.

Implementation should be phased and measurable. In the near term, a state-level task force comprising representatives of trustees, revenue, judiciary, archaeology, and dharmic communities can audit the current status of Devasthan lands and prioritize high-risk parcels. Within a year, a unified digital register and a code of procedures for encroachment removal and acquisition review can go live. Over the medium term, specialized tribunals and trained encroachment cells can reduce average case disposal times. Success metrics—land restored, cases resolved, community services scaled, and heritage assets revived—should be publicly reported.

The Ratnagiri meeting thus serves as a catalyst for constructive reform. The request to permanently scrap the proposed Devasthan Inam Abolition Act is less a rejection of reform than a call to channel reform into a constitutionally aligned, protection-first statute. By centering Article 26 rights, parity across traditions, and practical enforcement, a Devasthan Land Protection Act can secure the land base that enables worship, service, learning, and cultural transmission for future generations.

In spirit and substance, the appeal voiced in Ratnagiri seeks unity and fairness across dharmic institutions while reaffirming that safeguarding sacred lands is not an insular demand but a public good—preserving living heritage, social welfare activities, and the ecological and cultural commons that have long radiated from India’s temples, viharas, derasars, and gurdwaras.

Inspired by this post on Hindu Jagruti Samiti.