Ownership of Land:
Scholars have come to opposing conclusions about the ownership of the land-based on ancient literature and epigraphic documents. The king, according to one of the verses in the Manusmriti, is the owner of the treasures hidden underground since he owns the land. This implies that the government-owned all property, including arable land.
Similarly, Diodorus has stated that all land in India is owned by the crown and that no private citizen is allowed to buy it. Other scholars, however, have concluded that private land possession occurred based on the testimony of another passage in the Manusmriti.
According to this passage, the field belonged to him who cleared the wood and the deer from him who first wounded it with an arrow.” The Nasik caves had proof that privately owned land had been requested for the benefit of ascetics.
Purvamimansa makes a specific reference to this issue, stating that a king cannot dispose of the property of private individuals because he is required to give up all of his belongings in charity after such sacrifices.
Similarly, Narada points out that if the king interfered with the ownership and control of houses and properties, it would be extremely inquisitors, since it would result in absolute anarchy. Arthasastra also provides a strong distinction between crown land and private land.
According to one of the Jataka legends, a king told his mistress that he couldn’t give her his kingdom because he didn’t own it. The concept of private land ownership dates back to the Rig Vedic period. We may find evidence that the arable and homestead land belonged to a person or a family. It’s possible that pasturage was popular.
In reality, there are so many different references to land ownership in ancient literature that it’s difficult to draw any conclusions. We find similarities to land ownership by individuals or families, as well as collective and royal ownership. Similar mechanisms most likely existed in different parts of the world.
The ability to give, sell, and lease land determines the effectiveness of the right of possession. Several inscriptions in the ancient legal literature document the gifting of property by the crown, community, and private persons, in addition to references to an individual’s right to alienate the land.
The property was only given to us, and we don’t have many references for land purchases or sales. However, when selling a piece of property, the Arthasastra has registered a preference order for selecting buyers. Cousins, neighbors, and wealthy individuals all fall under this category.
People were free to give their land away or mortgage it. We don’t have many examples of land sales or transfers for reasons other than religion. The king or private persons will usually make grants to Brahmans or temples.
This would not indicate that the lands were directly surrendered to the donee; however, it meant that the grantee would be responsible for paying the state’s taxes, whether in cash or kind. There are many examples of absolute ownership rights on the property being passed to the donee.
Dhruvasena I of Valabhi, for example, donated 360 padavartas to a temple in his realm. This land was not adjacent and was separated from it by private property.
This means that although certain properties were held by private individuals or the government, the state-owned others. The state’s estate was referred to as Rajya-Vastu, and it was inherited by the state either through the death of heirs or the inability to pay the property tax.
It is unknown how the lands were cultivated until they were passed to the donee (rather than the revenue). They were most likely either rented out to sub-tenants or cultivated by hired laborers.
It’s still unclear if these lands were granted permanently or not. The donee had no right of alienation or a permanent endowment of rent-free property, but these grants were most likely made on a perpetual basis.
“We possess definitive evidence to prove that in the post-Buddhist era, at any rate, possession in cultivable lands was vested in private persons,” according to Dr. A.S. Altekar.
Except for the non-payment of the land-tax, the state has no power to intervene. Thus, what was demanded of the average cultivator was a farm tax rather than a land rent.”
Another issue concerning land possession in ancient India is whether the inhabitants had a right to occupancy subject to the king’s enjoyment or whether it existed in the ordinary context. Scholars have been unable to reach a definitive conclusion on this issue.
One passage in the Milindapanha notes unequivocally that the king owns all cities, docks, mines, and other natural resources on the planet. Manu seems to side with this viewpoint, stating that the king is the soil’s overlord (adipati).
While some scholars have argued that this interpretation of Manu clashes with his precept that possession passes to the first cleaner, Prof. Adiya believes that these two views of Manu are incompatible. He claims that private property ownership has never been an actual right. Whatever the theoretical situation might have been, the state has always had the final say on this matter.