The controversial question as to whom the offerings of a Devale belong, certainly brings out a serious matter of interest and a series of questions that arise from this ‘Gold Tray’
Do the offerings belong to the Devales or Temples or to individuals?
Should there be no check by the Commissioner of Buddhist Affairs as he appoints the Basnayake Nilames and even the Diyawadana Nilame of the Sri Dalada Maligawa? 
This issue arises with the Maha Kapurala of the Maha Devale been taken into custody over a gold tray
Whatever that is offered to the deities is not necessarily the income of the Kapurala or the Basnayake Nilames. However, traditions of these sacred shrines invariably differ when it comes to property and monies, and as to whom they belong.  But, it could be assumed that the offering to the deity is the income to the institution and that should be accounted. Since we have a department to manage and audit the properties and income, it is their duty to bring in legislation for this purpose.

In the times of the ancient Kings, the monarch decides under whom the monies should be collected. In fact, King Rajasinghe did not allow the monies of the Maha Katargama Devale to be collected by Maha Dissava Keppetipola which became an issue.  The King decides, and now the “King” of the Temples or Devales is the Commissioner General of Buddhist Affairs, so he has to decide.
Unlike some of the Kapurala’s of today, the Kapurala’s of the bygone eras were men who feared their deity, and although living on the earnings of the Devale, they saved the wealth offered to the deities as if it was their own property.  
We come to the point of the role of the Department of Buddhist Affairs, which is governed by the Buddhist Temporalities Act. Are they there only to appoint the Trustees, count the monies from the tills of the Devales and Temples, and deposit them in Banks? Their duty is far from these tasks, but whether they are following the accepted protocols expected from them is a question.
There are instances where some Basnayake Nilames have bought vehicles, some have paid their monthly rentals, and some have purchased luxury vehicles, all from Devale funds.  Has the Commissioner General of Buddhist Affairs approved these purchases from Devale funds? If not, what action has been taken.
They have a huge responsibility, but they do shirk their responsibility, and this is the cause for the drain of public monies from these religious institutions, resulting in the State having to supplement when Perahera’s are on the cards.  
Devales rather than Temples are visited by people to pray and seek the blessings of the deities. With these devotees come the coins, gold ornaments and supplications offered to the deities, and NOT to the Kapurala’s. 
But the Kapurala is the intermediary between the deity, the Basnayake Nilame and the devotees.  The Basnayake Nilame of a Devale has no right to enter the inner sanctum of the Devale without the expressed permission of the Kapurala. What he sees within should not be given out.  That is the rule.  The Basnayake Nilame has no authority to enter the inner sanctum of the Devale without the permission of the Kapurala.
This writer spoke to the most senior Banayake Nilame who is now living on retirement and at one time was the Acting Diyawadana Nilame before the present Diyawadana Nilame assumed office, Rohana Paranagama.  He is a walking Encyclopedia on the subject of the Buddhist Temporalities Act and the other regulations governing the Devales.
His opinion was that there are a set of regulations governing the offerings and the rights of the Kapuralas, but they are ignored.  He said that devotees have a right to give any offering to the office of the Basnayake Nilame and obtain a receipt before the offering is made to the Devale.  This is in abeyance, he added.  But he said, as tradition, the offerings on the “Wattiya” or the tray that is given to the Kapurala is a question. To whom does it all belong? This question is now before the Judiciary even though a complaint has not been filed, yet a comment would injure a decision.
It is best to avoid the subject of ownership of the offerings, which will once and for all be decided upon when the authorities file the necessary papers before the Court.
Former Basnayake Nilame Paranagama said that though for two years both Maha Vihares discussed the much sought out Buddhist Temporalities Act (of which he was a committee member) and a memorandum with the amendments needed was handed over to  the then President Mahinda Rajapakse and also taken up in Parliament, the endeavour has not gone further.  It is time the State, at least now takes this vital issue, the much debated Buddhist Temporalities Act into consideration for the preservation of these institutions for their devotees.
Therefore, the income in whatever the form is for the Devale or the Temple, and not to one individual. It is time to strengthen the Buddhist Temporalities Act and bring out a system for the future of these institutions and for those in charge of them.

This writer remembers the late Mahanayke of Asgiri, Venerable Udugama Buddharakitha handing over these amendments (as suggested by the Committee which discussed for nearly two years), at an alms giving where one hundred members of the Sangha (the largest number of historical significance) was held at the former home of Adigar Pilamatalawa on which is built the Janadhipathi Mandiraya.
Our lawmakers are either afraid or are dilly-dallying with this piece of legislation which has to be enacted if the country is to safeguard these institutions for the benefit of the devotees of Natha, Maha Vishnu, Katargama, Saman and other deities whom people believe could safeguard their lives and bring prosperity to their homes. The “Kataragama Devale”, which can be called an episode in the long history of these sacred sites could be streamlined for the future.