|
South Indian Inscriptions |
ECONOMIC CONDITION ploughed by a single pair of bullocks. This is said to be equivalent to five acres. A third method of stating the intended extent of land was by mentioning the quantity of seed required for sowing it. The measures of capacity khāri,1 pitaka 2 and prastha 3 are mentioned in this connection. Other measures of the same kind were khandi or khandikā, gōnī and ghatī.4 Of the weights used in that age, only one, viz., bharaka5 is found mentioned. It was used for weighing ginger, arecanuts, pepper etc. The records do not shed much light on the vexed question of the ownership of land. we can draw some inferences from the conditions and descriptions of the gifts in copper plate charters. In most cases the gifts were of entire villages in favour of temples, monasteries and indivduals. In such cases, what was transferred was evidently the royal prerogative of demanding land revenue and other dues in cash or kind. The donee plainly could not dispossess the individuals residing in the village of their homesteads and cultivated fields. The maxim of fallow land (bhūmi chchhidra-nyāya), 6 usually mentioned in land-grants to describe the gifts, signified full proprietary right, i.e., a complete freedom from the payment of revenue and other dues to the reigning prince. It also transferred some other privileges usually claimed by the king, but it did not carry with it the right to oust all tenants. When fields and small plots of land were, however, donated, the case was different. The cultivators who were formerly in possession of the pieces of land are generally mentioned in such cases. The words signifying their possession used in early grants are pratyaya, bhukta and satka.7 None of these signifies absolute ownership. Besides it is clearly stated in all these grants that the donee was free to cultivate the land himself or to get it cultivated by others as he pleased. The previous cultivartors of these lands were evidently temporary tenants who had no proprietary right to them. The fields were probably a part of the crown land in the particular villages. On the other land, those fields which the cultivators owned absoutely were known as kautumba-kshētra. Two such fields are mentioned in a grant for the demarcation of the boundaries of the donated piece of land.8 Such fields were evidently held by the particular families from generation to generation and could not, therefore, be taken away from them except for the non-payment of land-revenue etc.
The bulk of the population then, as now, lived in villages. The chief village of a
vishaya was called jyēshthikā-grāma. Some of the villages had banks which received endowments and paid interest on them in perpetuity. The boundaries of the villages were properly
marked. There used to be a village common and a pasture-land surrounding it for the
grazing of the cattle.9 Sometimes, pasture-lands were donated by private individuals.
Their boundaries were clearly marked by erecting pillars with the image of the goddess
Durga carved on them.11 Among other things which constituted the common property
of the villagers were the tank which irrigated their fields, the jungle which supplied them
1No. 42, 1.32.
|
|