Ancient Hindu temple premises encroached by village head; caretaker threatened and pressured to vacate premises upon opposition

Case ID : 30a985b | Location : Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, India | Date of Incident : Mon, 20 July, 2026

Case ID : 30a985b

Unnao, Uttar Pradesh, India

20 July, 2026

Ancient Hindu temple premises encroached by village head; caretaker threatened and pressured to vacate premises upon opposition

Attack on Hindu religious representations

Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Case Summary

In Unnao district of Uttar Pradesh, a nearly 100‑year‑old Shiva temple was encroached upon by constructing private shops on the land adjoining the temple by the village head. The complainant stated that the encroachment endangered the temple premises and that he was repeatedly threatened with death for opposing the construction. The matter came to light when Ram Kishore, a resident of Aira Bhadiyar village under Makhi police station in Unnao district, submitted a complaint to the District Magistrate stating that the current village head (Gram Pradhan) was constructing permanent shops and a market on protected government grazing (gauchar) and barren land. According to the complaint, the temple, locally known as "Mohan Lala Kuti", had existed for nearly 100 years and was an important place of worship for the village. The temple premises also housed ancient Peepal and Banyan trees where villagers regularly performed Hindu religious rituals and offered prayers. Ram Kishore stated that, with the consent of previous village heads, he had been residing in a room (kothari) within the temple premises while looking after the temple and maintaining its daily affairs. The complainant stated that the current Gram Pradhan had constructed permanent shops and a market on the protected gauchar land adjoining the temple, despite the land being government property. He stated that complaints regarding the encroachment had earlier been submitted before the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate (SDM), following which notices were issued under Sections 132/67 and 112 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code. However, despite the issuance of these notices, no effective action was taken to remove the encroachment. Ram Kishore further stated that when he objected to the encroachment, the Gram Pradhan and his supporters repeatedly threatened to kill him and attempted to forcibly evict him from the temple premises and the room where he resided. He also informed the authorities that his uncle had previously been murdered, making the threats against him particularly serious and causing him to fear for his life. Seeking official intervention, Ram Kishore urged the District Magistrate to conduct an impartial inquiry into the matter, remove the encroachment from the government grazing land, protect the nearly 100‑year‑old Shiva temple and its associated room, provide him with adequate security, and initiate legal proceedings against those responsible under the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

The primary category for this case is "Attack on Hindu religious symbols". The sub-category for this case is "Encroachment or illicit takeover of temple land/land near temple" In Hinduism, a temple is the abode of the Deity. The Deity in the Temple is consecrated, thereby making it a real, breathing entity. Hindus believe that not just the Deity but the temple premises themselves are sacred to Hindus since Hindus hold the faith that the entire Temple space is an amalgamation of the divine energy of the deity. Not only the Temple but the Temple premises in their entirety are considered sacred by Hindus. In several cases, the premises of the Temple and/or religious centre are illicitly taken over by institutions belonging to other faiths – like the Waqf board or the Church. Other times, the temple property, land or the property of religious centres are illicitly encroached by non-Hindu groups. Any illicit takeover or encroachment is a crime an initio; however, when non-Hindu groups illicitly take over or encroach the sacred land of Hindus, it is an affront to the Hindu community and is therefore classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. The other sub-category selected is - Attack not resulting in death. Within it, the sub-category selected is - Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save the victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. This case was included in the Hinduphobia Tracker because it involved the encroachment of land associated with a centuries-old Hindu temple and the intimidation of a Hindu devotee who attempted to protect the temple and its religious premises. The temple and its surrounding land formed an integral part of a sacred Hindu religious space where devotees regularly worshipped and performed religious rituals. Any attempt to unlawfully occupy or alter such land directly interfered with the sanctity and functioning of a Hindu place of worship. A Hindu temple is not merely a physical structure, but the abode of the deity, and the land attached to it is regarded as part of that sacred institution. The surrounding premises facilitate religious worship, preserve the temple's spiritual character, and allow devotees to practise their faith without obstruction. Consequently, encroaching upon land adjoining a temple for non-religious commercial purposes amounted to an intrusion into a space dedicated to Hindu religious life and undermined its religious character. Furthermore, the opposition to the encroachment was met with threats of violence and attempts to forcibly remove the individual responsible for safeguarding the temple. This demonstrated that the objective extended beyond occupying land and included silencing resistance through intimidation. Targeting a Hindu devotee for protecting a temple created an atmosphere of fear that discouraged others from defending Hindu religious institutions and asserting their religious rights. The conduct of the perpetrators reflected a conscious disregard for the sanctity of the temple and the rights of Hindus to preserve and protect their place of worship. By proceeding with the encroachment despite objections and resorting to threats against the temple's caretaker, they displayed hostility towards the protection of a Hindu religious institution. Their actions indicated an intention to secure control over land attached to the temple by intimidating those who stood in its defence. Therefore, the incident constituted a religiously motivated attack on a Hindu religious institution and on the individual who sought to protect it, warranting its inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker. Disclaimer: The Hinduphobia Tracker has recorded 21 July 2026 as the date of the victim's ordeal because the exact date on which the encroachment began is not available in the public domain. Accordingly, the date of the first media report has been used.