In Manchar, Pune (Maharashtra), a historic stepwelllocally described as “Pandava‑era”has reportedly been removed from waqf records following a formal verification of endowment and revenue documentation by the competent authorities. The correction, noted in early April 2026, concluded months of citizen representations, site inspections, and archival review, and affirms that safeguarding shared water heritage is compatible with India’s statutory framework governing religious endowments.
Stepwells (vav/baoli) are among India’s oldest public water infrastructures, integrating hydrology, architecture, and community ritual across Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Sikh milieus. While “Pandava‑era” is a common cultural epithet for very old wells, the more rigorous approach is to date such structures through inscriptions, stylistic analysis, stratigraphy, and archival records; regardless of exact chronology, their social function as a commons open to all has been historically consistent.
India’s waqf governance is set out in the Waqf Act 1995 (amended in 2013). Key processes include: preliminary surveys (Section 4), publication of lists of auqaf (Section 5), dispute resolution over listings (Sections 6–7) by the Waqf Tribunal, and determinations by State Waqf Boards on whether a property is waqf property (Section 40) based on evidence such as a waqfnama (dedication deed), gazette notifications, long and exclusive religious use, and continuous management by a mutawalli. Corrections to revenue records then follow the outcome of these statutory inquiries.
Supreme Court jurisprudence has clarified jurisdiction and process. In Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum (2010) 14 SCC 588, the Court held that the Waqf Tribunal is the proper forum to decide whether property is waqf. In Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) through LRs v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726, the Court delineated the limits of civil court and rent control jurisdiction in waqf matters. These guardrails ensure that correctionswhether adding or removing propertiesrest on evidence rather than sentiment.
In disputes concerning water commons like stepwells, the documentary matrix often includes village maps, settlement registers, land use classifications under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, photographs and measured drawings, oral histories, and any historical endowment instruments. Where no waqfnama exists, usage has been public and non‑exclusive, and the local body has maintained the asset as a civic utility, authorities commonly treat the structure as a public heritage resource rather than a religious endowment.
In the Manchar matter, local institutions reportedly compiled cadastral extracts and historical notes, after which the relevant waqf entry was corrected and the stepwell recognized in public records as a community resource. The outcome enables professional conservationincluding structural audits, de‑siltation, and safe access planningand creates space for interpretive signage that narrates the site’s plural history without privileging any one sectarian claim.
Beyond legalities, the social response has been instructive. Residents across dharmic traditions spoke of grandparents drawing water here, schoolchildren organized clean‑ups, and heritage volunteers documented carvings and construction techniques. Such gestures strengthen social cohesion and exemplify the principle that cultural heritage is a shared trustSanatana in spirit, inclusive in practice.
Parallelly, in Gokak (Belagavi district, Karnataka), a records‑related row has reportedly escalated over the status of certain parcels listed or perceived as waqf property. Petitions for verification have been filed with revenue authorities and the Karnataka Waqf Board, and an evidence‑led review is under way. Peaceful civic engagement, transparency in record sharing, and recourse to the Waqf Tribunal where required are the most reliable avenues to de‑escalate such disagreements.
When authorities differentiate between a religious endowment and a public heritage asset, they typically assess: existence of a waqfnama or founders’ deed; contemporaneous gazette listings; continuous religious use and mutawalli control; revenue classification; maintenance history by panchayat/municipality; and patterns of public access. Stepwells, by their very design and social purpose, usually fall within the category of commons unless specific dedicatory documents prove otherwise.
To minimize future friction, several governance improvements are advisable: geospatially map and geo‑tag all stepwells and water bodies; digitize cadastral sheets and gazette notifications; create joint verification cells involving revenue, archaeology, endowments, and waqf departments; publish speaking orders with reasons and evidence tables; and time‑box objection windows under Sections 6–7 of the Waqf Act 1995. Collaboration with State Archaeology and, where appropriate, the ASI (Archaeological Survey of India) can anchor conservation to recognized standards.
Conservation should be science‑driven: hydraulic studies to understand recharge potential; non‑invasive structural assessments; stone conservation using lime‑based mortars compatible with historic fabric; guardrails and lighting for safe access; and inclusive programmingheritage walks, school modules, and community water stewardshipso that the site remains living heritage rather than a fenced‑off relic.
Taken together, the Pune rectification and the Gokak review highlight a replicable template: evidence before assertion, institutions before emotions, and unity before polarization. By aligning community energy with the rule of law and best‑practice conservation, India can honor both religious endowments rightly constituted and the cultural commons that serve allHindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, and every resident who shares in the country’s living heritage.
Inspired by this post on Struggle for Hindu Existence.
