Goa Devasthan Regulations: Temple Governance Guide

Hindu temples, or Devasthans, in Goa have a unique legal heritage shaped by centuries of Portuguese colonial rule. If you've ever wondered about the Goa Devasthan Regulation and how it governs temple administration, you're not alone. These regulations establish frameworks for membership bodies like Mazanias or Mahajans, bye-laws, and managing committees. This post breaks down the essentials, from historical evolution to modern applications, helping devotees, trustees, and legal enthusiasts understand this niche area of Goan law.

Historical Evolution of Devasthan Regulations

The governance of Hindu temples in Goa traces back to Portuguese-era laws designed to regulate religious institutions while maintaining colonial oversight. The 1886 Regulation, known as Portaria No. 584 or Regulamento das Mazanias, was a pivotal step. It addressed gaps in earlier laws by granting juridical personality to Mazanias (temple member bodies) and requiring catalogues of Mahajans (members).

Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

However, this was superseded by the more comprehensive 1933 Devasthan Regulation (Legislative Diploma No. 645). Article 437 explicitly repealed the 1886 rules and any contrary provisions, whether general or special. Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation 1933, among other things, repeals the Devasthan Regulation issued vide Government order No.584 dated 30.10.1886. 2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3445 Accordingly the previous Devasthan Regulation under Government Order No. 584 dated October 30, 1886, was repealed and the Devasthan Regulation by Act of Legislature No. 645 dated March 30, 1933, was introduced. 2022 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3445

Amendments followed in 1949 (No. 1311) and 1951 (No. 1388), standardizing temple management across Goa. Courts have affirmed that bye-laws under the 1886 regime, such as Government Order No. 108 for Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin Devasthan, were automatically repealed if conflicting. 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 709

Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

Post-1961 liberation, these Portuguese laws persist for Devasthans, though Indian public trust laws may apply supplementally in certain contexts.

Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

Key Provisions on Temple Governance

The 1933 Regulation forms the bedrock, emphasizing structured administration:

• Mazanias/Mahajans: Article 17 requires government-approved bye-laws (Compromisso) detailing membership criteria (e.g., family groups or gotra), rights, obligations, rituals, festivities, servants, and fund management. These must not contradict the Regulation.

  Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

• Bye-laws: Temple-specific private statutes governing rites, income, and expenses, always subject to government nod. For instance, Shree Damodar Temple's 1900 bye-laws (Article 4) affirm equal rights among Mahajans.

  Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

• Managing Committees: Elected exclusively by Mahajans or associates from affiliate temples. Notably, there's no provision for separate Dazans committees post-1933—only one primary body of members. Articles 44 and 45 empower the Governor General (now adapted authorities) to dissolve committees or appoint administrative ones in crises.

  Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

  1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 709

Non-Goan Mahajans typically retain voting rights unless bye-laws explicitly disqualify them, a practice upheld over decades.

Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

Judicial Interpretations and Key Cases

Goan courts, particularly the Bombay High Court at Goa, have clarified ambiguities:

• Pre-1933 dual structures (Mahajans and Dazans) lapsed. Article 437 of the Devasthan Regulation, in force repealed not only the Devasthan Regulation approved by Government Order No. 584 dated 30-10-1886, but also the rules to the contrary, general as well as special. 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 709
• No statutory right to Dazans elections; governance falls under Chapter III for Mazanias enrollment, meetings, and committees. 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 709
• In disputes over temples like Shree Damodar or Shree Bhagwati Chimulkarrin, courts prioritized 1933 provisions, questioning pre-1933 bye-laws' survival if oppositional.

  Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

Recent cases reinforce this. For example, references in High Court appeals note elections under the Regulation, such as on the second Sunday of February.

PANDHARINATH LAXMAN MAPARI AND ANR vs THE STATE OF GOA, THR. THE SECRETARY AND 82 ORS

SHRI ULHAS RAYU NAIK DESSAI vs DEVALAYA OF SHREE SHANTADURGA KUNKOLIKARIN OF FATORPA, THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANR

SOCIEDADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD., MARGAO-GOA vs M/S. HEDE AND COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNERS(DECEASED)

Regulation along with the provisions of said Regulation. These judgments underscore that deviations, like unapproved committees, may be irregularities but not always fatal to proceedings.

SHRI VISHWASRAO BABUSAHEB RANE AND 4 ORS vs DEVALAYA OF SHRI SANTERI QUELBAI AND GADOUSO OF ODAULI THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY AND ANR

Exceptions, Limitations, and Modern Context

While the 1933 framework dominates:- Some pre-1933 bye-laws persist if non-conflicting, e.g., Shree Damodar's 1900 rules on voting.

Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

Other Goan regulations, like land use laws, occasionally intersect with temple properties but don't alter core Devasthan governance. For instance, the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991, restricts certain lands, yet temple admin remains distinct. 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 982

Practical Recommendations for Temples

To ensure compliance:- Verify bye-laws against Article 17 and seek government approval for revisions.- Elect managing committees solely via Mahajans; contest Dazans claims using Articles 44/45.- Enroll members per Regulation; include non-Goans unless barred.- Litigate repeals under Article 437 if needed.

Temples like those in Ponda or Panaji continue applying these, as seen in cases involving Savoi Verem.

VIJAYKUMAR SAWAIKAR vs SHREE ANANT DEVASTHAN, THR. ITS ATTORNEY AND 2 ORS

Key Takeaways

• The 1933 Devasthan Regulation repealed 1886 rules, centralizing control with Mazanias/Mahajans. 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 709

  Ramnath Vasudev Shanbhag VS Administrator Of Devalaya - Bombay (2022)

• Bye-laws must align; committees are Mahajan-elected only.
• Judicial trends favor uniformity, protecting member rights.

Disclaimer: This overview provides general information based on historical and judicial sources. Laws evolve, and specific advice requires consulting a qualified Goan lawyer. Temple matters often hinge on unique facts.

For deeper dives into cases or updates, reference primary documents or recent High Court rulings.