There is no total freedom to deal with devasthans, says HC

The Maharashtra government recently informed that it is "confused" in deciding whether to initiate action against over 2000 Devasthans (lands owned by religious institutions) or not. The "lame" excuse given by the government to defend its decision, however, did not went down well with the HC.

A division bench of Justices Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre said, "There is no total freedom to deal with such lands in the manner chosen by the Devasthan and it would be for the concerned person managing and administering the affairs of such lands of religious institutions to comply with the requirement and mandate of law before dealing with these lands or allowing any dealings or transaction in relation thereto."

"We have seen that there is no impediment in augmenting the income of these religious institutions nor can they face a cash crunch merely because they have to comply with the law," the bench observed further.

The observations were made in response to the affidavit filed by the government claiming it is facing difficulties in identifying and tracing nearly 2909 of such lands.

"Such excuses by responsible officials raises unnecessary doubts and suspicion equally about their intentions. It gives a chance to those vested interests who claim the lands and valuable immovable property for purely private purposes and deal with them commercially. This is to be avoided at all costs," Justice Dharmadhikari said.

Trashing the claims of the government, the bench said it could take help of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act or Indian Trusts Act. The bench also said that the government can take help of these Acts and take over all such lands and later issue public notices inviting applications from people claiming to be trustees of such lands.

"Such lands will then have to be dealt with in the manner laid down by the law. If there is any doubt, the overriding provisions of the Constitution of India would guide the authorities. In no case, the State is helpless, much less confused as to whom and in whose favour the restoration of the land should be made," the bench said.