Land Ownership Practices in India: Insights from Inscriptions and Literary Sources (4th -13th Century CE) – A Historical Analysis.

 Author - Biswarup Chatterjee. 

Abstract

          This abstract examines the historical context of land ownership, differentiating various types of land (arable, barren, marshy, and forest) and discussing the evolution of ownership from the state to individuals. Evidence suggests that early ownership of non-arable lands rested with the state, while opinions diverge regarding arable lands, with some scholars asserting private ownership. The role of the state involved control through taxation, where failure could lead to confiscation. Furthermore, classifications of land into cultivable, uncultivable, and other types are explored, highlighting the complexities of land tenure and ownership in historical frameworks.

Keywords: - Inscription, Land ownership, Smrtis,

Ownership of Land in Ancient and Early Medieval India 

         

     An analysis of land ownership in ancient and early medieval India reveals that land was classified into various categories, including arable, barren, marshy, and forest land. It is significant to note that, in the early stages, strong evidence suggests that the ownership of forest, marshy, and wasteland was vested in the state. However, there is considerable divergence of opinion regarding the ownership of arable land. Scholars remain divided on this issue, and even in antiquity. there was no unanimity of opinion. Advocates of state ownership of land were in the minority. Generally, it has been accepted that, for all practical purposes, the peasant was considered the Owner of the land. The king, as the sovereign ruler of the state, had certain claims over the land and received revenue from the peasants in exchange for the protection he provided. However, this arrangement did not equate to the king having proprietary rights over the land. 

Concept of Ownership. 

    Early medieval legal texts contain explicit notions of ownership. These texts, which follow the earlier Smrtis. discuss legal matters related to boundary disputes, dispossession, and the alienation of land through means such as leasing. mortgaging, selling. and gifting. Implicit in these discussions is the recognition of rights that generally Constitute ownership. The relative significance of possession and legitimate title, the two fundamental components of ownership, is examined extensively in these legal works. 

"āgamoabhyadhiko bhogãd vinã pürvakramāgatät |āgamenapi valanm naiva bhuktih stokāpi yatra no l"

(Yānjavalkyasamhitā, Vyavahara, verse 27). 

Kautilya also differentiates various categories of land, such as land for human habitation (vastublhürmi) and land for agriculture (krtakşetra). U. N. Ghosal observes that Medhatithi presents two contradictory statements regarding land ownership. On one occasion, he describes the king as the lord of the soil, while elsewhere, he states that the field belongs to the person who has made it fit for cultivation through clearing. Ram Charitra Prasad Singh highlights that Medhätithi's interpretations of Manu VIIl.39 and 99 appear to be inconsistent: 

"nidhinānm tu purānānāmdhātūnāmeva ca kşitauarddhabhāgraksanādrājā bhüūmeradhipatirhi sah ||" (Manusamhitā, chapter VIII, verse 749). 

     One statement implies royal ownership, while the other seems to advocate communal ownership of land. Singh concludes that Medhātithi's apparent support for communal ownership was merely theoretical, whereas, in practice, he recognized the king's ownership of land.

        Conversely, Lalanji Gopal suggests that Medhātithi supported individual land ownership. This perspective is evident from numerous passages in which Medhātithi grants individuals all rights associated with land ownership: 

"yehakşetrino vijavantah parakşetrapravāpiahte vai śasyasya jātasya na labhante falam kvacit |" EvI -3 (Manusamhita, chapter IX, verse 49).

    Gopal argues that Medhātithi's statement in Manu VIII.39 does not represent his definitive opinion on legal ownership but serves as a general maxim to justify the king's right to a share in treasures unearthed within his realm, a right rooted in his duty to provide protection. When Medhätithi describes the king as the master of the land (prabhur-asau bhūmiḥ), he does not assert the king's legal ownership of all cultivable land but rather acknowledges the king's sovereignty, which implies general lordship over the kingdom. Gopal further asserts that Medhātithi's commentary on Manu VIII.99 ultimately upholds individual ownership (The Rural Urban Economy and Social Changes in Ancient India (300 B.C. to 600 A.D.), p. 14). In examining Manu's assertion that false testimony regarding land is equivalent to murder, Medhätithi addresses an objection based on the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, which posits that the earth belongs to all men and that kings serve merely as caretakers. Medhätithi refutes this objection by arguing that, while the earth as a whole is referred to as bhūmi (land), ownership is certainly possible over specific fields, villages, and estates (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 5). 

Private Ownership

        

     Literary references from ancient India suggest the existence of individual land ownership from an early period. Family ownership appears to have been established well before the third century BCE (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 5). The Jātakas provide substantial evidence supporting individual ownership. For instance, the Salaka Jātaka describes the Bodhisatta as having been born into a landowning family. Other Jātaka stories depict landowners engaging in commerce in market settings (The Jātaka or Stories of the Buddha's Former Births, Vol. 2, Mach-Uddāna, pp. 288-299) and providing loans to villagers (Satapatta Jätaka, pp. 264-266). 

          

        The Milindapanha recounts that a man could acquire ownership of land by clearing and reclaiming it from a forest. Another passage from this text indicates that arable land was among the many possessions that could be gifted or donated 

"keci dāsīdāsam keci khettavatthum, keci dipadacatuppadam keci sata sahassam satasahassam keci mahārajjam keci jivitam pidentīti" (The Rural Urban Economy and Social Changes in Ancient India (300 B.C. to 600 A.D.), p. 16).  

    Pali literature presents a society divided between large landowners and landless wage earners (Saalikedara Jātaka, pp. 186-187). The emergence of large-scale landownership can be traced to the later Vedic period when tribal states gradually transitioned into territorial states. Vedic rulers sought to expand their domains by waging wars, often under the guise of rituals such as the Aśvamedha and Vajapeya. These conquests provided opportunities for the nobility to claim and cultivate land belonging to the vanquished. Evidence suggests that, beyond the noble class, wealthy Sūdras also owned and managed large agricultural estates (Saalikedara Jātaka, pp. 21-22). By the later Vedic period, family ownership of land had become firmly established.

    Later literary sources also indicate individual ownership. The Deśopadeśa lists land as part of a miser's wealth, along with money, property, and a house:

"dhanam bhūmirgṛham dārāḥ sarvatha janmasancitam l

Parārthameva paryante kadaryasya jinasya ca ||" (Deśopadeśa and Narmamalā, p. 4). 

The Mänasollāsa equates the theft of land with that of a house, garments, and grain: 

"grdväravasuksetram vasu (snna) dhānyam dhanādikam |harate yat tu mūdātmā paradroḥ sa ucyate ||" (Mānasollāsa, Vol. 1, p. 4, Vol. 40). 

    In the fourth Taranga of the Rājatarangiṇī, Chandrāpiḍa hesitates to seize land from a tanner, opting instead to purchase it (Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India, p. 12). 

Land Grants by Private Individuals

          

    Several inscriptions from later periods, which record land grants, sales, and purchases by private individuals, corroborate the testimony of legal works. The Damodarpur Copper Plate (CP) of the Gupta period, discovered in the Dinajpur district of present-day Bangladesh, records the purchase of land by a private individual from the state government. In the Damodarpur CP issued by Budhagupta (476-495 CE), a formal application was submitted by the chief merchant Ribhupala (nagara śreşthi Ribhupala) to purchase with proper price

"kotivvarssavisaye ca anena śreştiribhupālena viñjāpitam himavcchikhare kokamukhasvaminah catvāraḥ kulyavapäḥ śvetava rahasvaminopi sapla kulyavāpāḥ asmat phalāśansino punyābhivr dhaye doñgāgrame.... aprada … samipya bhūmau tayorādyakokāmukhasvami ksetavaraha .....kulyavāpānyathākraya-maryyadaya datumiti" (Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions, p. 62). 

The donation of land by feudal chiefs or government officials further attests to private land ownership. The Bhubaneswar inscription records that a woman named Maḍamadevi, in conjunction with a leading merchant (Sādhu-pradhāna), purchased a piece of land from a śreşthin in Devadhara- grāma and subsequently granted it to the god Kirttiväseśvara, who is worshipped in the Lingaraja Temple: 

"śrī Kirttiv[a]seśvaras[y]a pri[pri]taye Medamadev[i]........kūmārapāṭakaprati... Ra sadhupradhana-jayadeva-samavaya devadhara grāma dasapura śreşthin.... hastāt kṛtvä vähida khandkre[kshe]trai[m] sarvva[m*] kirttiväsesvaraya...." (Bhubaneswar inscription of Raghava, Saka 1090) (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 30, 1958, pp. 160-161). Certain inscriptions mention land owned by private individuals in connection with the demarcation of the boundaries of donated land. such as 

-"pūrvena ribhupāla puskariṇṛ" (Damodarpur CP of Budhagupta) (Corpus of  Bengal Inscriptions, p. 63). -"dakṣiṇena ma.kṣetra, paścimena yañjaśatakṣetrasimā" (Gunaighar CP) (Corpus of Bengal Inscription, p. 67). "pūrvyasāṃ (sā)stāmrapaṭṭasīmā uttarasyaṃ gargasvāmi tamtrapattasima" (Faridpur CP of Dharmaditya) (Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions, p. 20). "pürve śāntāgārikapra...saśāsana sīmā, paścime śāntāgārika samadevaśāsanapurvapārṣaḥ" (Sundarban CP of Lakshmanasena) (Inscriptions of Bengal, p. 171).

    Fields owned by cultivators were typically referred to as kutumba kşetra. In Pala records from Bengal and Bihar, references to kutumbe appear alongside other titles such as Mahattara, Mahattama, and Uttama "brāhmaṇottarān mahattara - kutumbi puroga" (Monghyr CP of Devapaladeva) (Inscriptions of Bengal, p. 119) "mahattamottama kuṭumvi puroga" (Bangada CP of Mahipala) (Inscriptions of Bengal, p. 2012).

    This suggests that kutumbins owned small plots of land, while Mahattaras and Mahattamas controlled significantly larger estates. 

Supporters of State Ownership of Land

    Mīmāṃsā thinkers distinguished between state ownership and individual ownership "na bhūmiḥ syātsarvanpratyaviśiṣṭātvāt" (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 5).

          

        This reflects the increasing claims of the state over land ownership in practice. It is plausible that the Mīmāmsā viewpoint traces its roots to protests recorded in Brāhmaṇa literature regarding land donations: (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 2.) 

          

    Nonetheless, some thinkers rejected the king’s claim to land ownership. The 17th century legal text Vyavahāra Mayūkha quotes Jaimini in support of his viewpoint “sthāvaraṃ dvipadaṃ caiva yadyapi svayamarjitam ǀ asaṃbhūya sutānsarvānma dānaṃ na ca vikrayaḥ ‖” (Vyavahāra Mayūkha) (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 2). 

         Converrsely, the Mānasollāsa asserts that the king is the lord of the land “dhanānāmīśvaro rājā vrahamaṇā parikalpitaḥ ǀ bhūgatānāṃ viśeṣeṇa yato asau vibudhādhipaḥ ‖” (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 2). 

Royal Grants to Individuals or Religious Institutions

    From the post-Gupta period onward, royal grants to Brahmins, temples and monasteries for religion became common across India. In eastern India, numerous land donation charters issued by various ruling dynasties of Assam, Bengal, Behar, and Odisha have been found. For example, in the Guwahati Copper plate of Indrapala, land was donated to a Brahmin named Deśapāla of the kāśyapagotra “kāśyapagotroatipavitra…. deśapāla iti snigdhavandhunāṃ kṛtapālanaḥ ǀ…. śāsanīkītya bhūreṣāṃ…. dvijāya dattā yattāya rājyeaṣṭamasame mayā ‖” (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 2). 

    In the Ashrafpur CP of Devakhadga, land was granted to a Buddhist monastery built by Sanghamitrā for the longevity of prince Rājarājabhațta “rājarajābhațța (ta) svāyuşka, mārtha(rthaṃ) ācārya-vanddhya- saṃghamitra-padai (ḥ*) kāri[taṃ] vihāra-vihārikā catuşṭayam-ekagaṇḍīkṛtaṃ tadvişayapatyādibhiḥ [kuțumvibhiśca] [nirvivadai*] rbhavitavyamiti (II*)… bhümeśca dānāmi." (Inscription of Orissa, Vol. I, p. 188).

    From these records, it is evident that the rulers granted entire villages or multiple plots of land to religious figures and institutions, often bestowing them with extensive privileges. This practice underscores the theoretical claim of kings over all land, which they transfer to the recipents.

Right of Feudatories

        During ancient times, feudal chief increasingly asserted claims over land ownership. Which theoretically, feudatory rulers were not entitled to grant land, in practice, they frequently donated land from their jurisdictions. In certain cases, they were required to seek the consent of the suzerain king before making such grants. The Mallasarul copper plate (CP) of Vijayasena, for instance, mentions the reign of Gopacandra while recording a land donation by Maharaja Vijayasena “mahārājādhiraja śri Gopacandre praśāsati …. Hari-prabhutaya vithyadhikaraṇāñca viñjāpayanti ǀ pujyaṃ-mahārājavijayasenena vayamabhyarthitā iccheahametad-vithi-sambaddha-vetragarttāgrāme yuşmabhyoya tha...nyāyenopakrīyāṣṭau kulyavāpān mātāpitro-rātmanaśca punyābhivṛddhaye …. putra pautrānvaya-bhogyatvena ... vatsasvāmino pañcamahāyajña-pravarttanñya pratipādayitumiti ǀ” (Inscriptions of Bengal, p. 63)

        Vijayasena, bearing the title of mahārāja, must have been a feudal chief or vassal of considerable influence; yet, he was obliged to acknowledge the authority of his suzerain, King Gopacandra. Similarly, the Mednipur Copper Plates of Saśānka document land grants made by a royal official (mahāpratihāra) named Subhakīrti, ruler of Danḍabhūkti, to a Brahmin named Dyāmyasvāmi. Another grant was made in favor of Brahmin Bhaṭṭeśvara by Somadatta, a feudal chief under Śaśānka “Samvat8 pauṣa-di10(+)2 asmindivasamāsasaṁvatsare........Śrīmanmahāpratihāre Subhakirttau vicakṣaṇe ‖ ...yathānyayaṃ Ṥubhakirttirayaṃ vudaḥ (ǀ*) catvārimsa (riṃśa) ddadau droṇān droṇavāpaṃ ca....ke(ta)kapadrikoddeśe grame kumbharapa-draka,,, damyasvāmina prakurute mohānmahā..” (Corpus of Bengal Incriptions, p. 88).

"Samvat 10 (+) 9 bhadra-di 1 (+) 9 asmindivasamāsasamvatsare ….śrīsāmantena kṛtinā somadattena dhīmatā   bhaṭṭeśvarāya guṇine ….. mahākumbhāra(padrako) dattah" (Nityakaler Tui Puratan, 2013, p. 140). 

        In cases where a feudatory ruler lacked significant power, records often omitted any reference to their seeking permission before making land donations, instead simply mentioning their names. With the increasing power of feudatories, they began asserting their claims over the land. The same pattern is observable in inscriptions from Odisha and Assam. For instance, in the Jayarampur CP during the reign of Gopacandra, land was donated by Maharaja Mahāsāmanta Acyuta. Acyuta, like Vijayasena of the Mallasarul CP, bore the title of mahārāja and had to seek the approval of his suzerain “Śrīmahāsāmantamahārājācyutena yuşmaddaodhayāṃ sadhubhiranekair-ācandrārkkā [līna]tāmrapaṭṭaśāsanaṃ sthitvā sa(śa)tāmūlye(ṣu) grāmakṣetravāstuni yuṣmat......devadvijamaṭhavihārāvasathevyo.... māhātmyātiśayabhagavadā ryyāva-lokiteśvarāddhyāsitaśrībodhipadrakamahāvihāre vihārakaraṇāya tasmaiśca val-icarūganddhapuṣpapradīpyā(pā)dikriyāpravarttanāyāryyasaṃghāya ca.... śvetavāli-kāgrāmaṃ krayeṇa

dātuṃm  tāmraśāsanikṛtyeti [I*] yatosmābhiryyu(ryu)ktamayā prārthayati sa

ca grāma samudra(dro)...da[ttam] [I*]”” (Nityakāler Tui Puratan, p. 141).

Land Assignments to Officers

        From the 5th century onward, the growing feudal structure led to an increasing trend of remunerating officers through land assignments. Xuanzang (Hu-En-Tsang) and Bāṇa's Harşacarita suggest that during Harṣa's reign, state officials were compensated primarily through land grants. Epigraphic references to land grants for officers appear from the 9th century AD onward (Copper Plates of Sylhet, Vol. I, p. 72).

    For example, the Bargaon CP documents a village grant by King Vajrahasta III, highlighting that an officer of the king issued the grant from his own fief. This suggests that such grants required the king's approval: (Indian Feudalism: C. 300-1200, p. 11). 

          

        Another case is recorded in the Meher CP of Damodaradeva, which introduces Gangadharadeva, the officer in charge of the royal elephant forces mentioned immediately after the king  forces, mentioned immediately after the king “vāraṇa-ghaṭā-salpūtra-mukhyah kṛitī śrī-Gaṅgādharadeva esha samara Prägjyotishendr-opamaḥ" (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 29, 1957, p. 183).

        The Kendupatna plates of Narasimha II record that King Narasimha donated multiple plots of land measuring 100 väțikās to Bhimadeva-sarman. As part of this grant, he permanently assigned certain individuals, including a conch shell bangle maker, a merchant, a goldsmith, an oilman, a milkman, and a potter:

"mahāpāta(tra) Bhīmadevaśarmmaṇe...soṅgoḍā viya(sha)ya pūrvva khanda madhye sthitam vohāla grāmaṃ...datteti[1*1]etacchāsanasyāṇgatayā....Golāodā-haṭṭiya- śai[ṅkha]kara-[Aṇa] nitā-suto(taḥ) Kālidās-ākhyaḥ....keso- śre(śre)shṭhī(shṭhi)-nāmā....suvarṇṇakāra...Alālā nāmā...gop-atālika Virju naptā vanamālī (li)-nāmadheyaḥ ||o|| vaṭṭakeśvara...gopāla-Raṇāi-naptā Aṇantāi nāmā [*]....kumbhakāra-Sīru-naptā Indū-nāmā Telī(li)-Rāju-naptā Vanamālī(li)-nāmā ||etāḥ sapta prajāḥ prādāta(dāt)...." (The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 21). 

        The Bhatera (Sylhet) inscription states that Govinda-Keśava donated 375 halas of land and 296 houses to Siva, also assigning various social groups, including cowherds, metalworkers, barbers, and boatmen, to the land "The Economic Life of Northern India, p. 15." 

Landed Aristocracy

         

        The large-scale donation of land to Brahmins and religious institutions such as temples and monasteries by rulers serves as significant evidence of actual land ownership. However, this practice led to the emergence of a landed aristocracy positioned between the king and the cultivators, facilitating the transfer of land ownership. This suggests that land was not exclusively state property but also held as private property, albeit under significant state control. In prehistoric times, land was undoubtedly vested in the entire community, and no individual could transfer it without the approval of the village residents. The Smrti and Niti texts indicate that, over time, the ownership rights of those who cultivated the land became recognized. Kautilya, in the Arthashastra, distinguishes between crown lands and private lands:

"mṛgavanaṃ vihārārthaṃ rāñja kāreyet," "svabhūmau" (Copper Plates of Sylhet, Vol. I, pp. 164-165).

His legal principles governing the sale of land recognize private ownership. Furthermore, according to the Pürvamimämsä tradition, the king, during the Viśvajit sacrifice, was required to donate all possessions except land, as it was not under his absolute control. This and other forms of evidence affirm that arable land was not solely vested in the state but was also owned by peasant proprietors. From various land grants and donations, it is evident that full land ownership transferred to the donee did not always encompass an entire village. Often, only specific portions of land were granted-either forfeited lands or plots under direct state control. However, certain inscriptions do record entire village donations, such as the Khalimpur Copper Plate of Dharmapala and the Nalanda Copper Plate of Devapala, which document grants of four and five villages, respectively: 

"...krauńcaśvbhra nāma grāmo.... Mādhāśālmalī nāma grāmaḥ.... Pālitake sīmā... gopippaī grāma...caturo grāmān atratya haṭṭkā talapāṭaka sametāndadātu deva iti ǀ” (Copper Plates of Sylhet, pp. 98-100)

"Nandivanāka grāma | Manivātaka grāma | națikā grāma | ha(sti)grāma pālāmaka grāmāḥ svasimā...bhūmicchidranyāyenācandrārkka kşiti sama kālaṃ...śāsanīkṛtya......pratipāditaḥ ǀ” (Arthaśāstra, p. 27).

     Despite this, the state often granted scattered plots rather than contiguous tracts of land. ṭSeveral inscriptions reveal that kings provided religious institutions with parcels of land dispersed across different areas, raising the question of how a king could make such grants if he did not possess ultimate ownership of all arable land. Some inscriptions also record the donation of detached, cultivable land situated in different corners of villages, further proving that the state was not the sole proprietor. For instance, the Bāngaḍa grants (988-1023 CE) of Mahipāla 1documrnt the donation of Kuraṭa – pallika village, except for Chuṭa pallikā and its low lying lands, which remain under Royal control “….punḍravardhaṇa bhuktau koṭivarsha viṣaye gokālikāmaṇḍalāṇtapati samva(ba)ddha āvachohinna tal opeta chūṭa pallikā varjjita kuraṭa pallikā grāme kuraṭa-pallikā grāma…..pradatto” (corpus of Bengal inscriptions, pp.99-100).

     This demonstrates that some plots were reserved for religious institutions and exempted from state dues. As a result, arable land was not universally owned by the state; rather, it belonged to private proprietors who retained possession as long as they regularly paid land taxes. If  land owners failed to pay taxes for two or three consecutive years, the state had the authority to confiscate their property  “karedebhyayaḥ kṛtakṣetraṇaikapurūṣikāṇi prayacchet ǀ akṛtāni kartṛbhyo nādeyār ǀ akṛṣatāmācchiddyānyebhyaḥ prayachet ǀ grāmabhṛtakavaidehakā vā kṛṣeyuḥ ǀ akṛṣantoavahīnaṃ dadyuḥ ǀ” (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 17, 1923, p. 321). 

            Similarly, the Manusmṛti prescribes fines for cultivators who fail to cultivate their fields at the proper time or allow crops to be consumed by animals “kṣetrikasyātyaye daṇḍo bhāgāddaśaguṇo bhavet ǀ tatoarddhadaṇḍo bhṛtyānāmañjānāt kṣekasya tu ǀǀ” (Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions, pp. 201-202). 

Types of Land

      Land was categorised into several types, including cultivable, cultivated, uncultivated, fallow, barren, jungle, hilly, marshy, low, and high lands. However, from the king’s perspective, land was primarily classified into three categories, such as - 

(1)  State land, which was further divided into few categories such as 

• land which is directly attached to the king.  

• The fief was granted to officers, subordinates, and royal family members as well as state farmers. 

• Land cultivated by temporary tenants receiving a portion of their produce.

• Uncultivated and waste land.

(2) Tenant occupied land – land occupied by cultivators who paid dues at agreed upon rates.

(3) Uninhabited and Uncultivated land – Land over which state control varied depending on circumstances.

Katilya, in the Arthasastra specifies policies governing state land 

(1) Land prepared for cultivation should be allotted to taxpayers for life.

(2) Unprepared land should not be taken from those actively working to make it arable.

(3) Land left uncultivated should be reassigned to others willing to cultivate it.

(4) Those neglecting cultivation should compensate for the loss.

“Karadebhyaḥ kṛtakṣetrāṇyaikapuruṣikāṇi kartṛbhyo nādeyāt akṛṣatāmācchidyānyebhyaḥ prayacchet grāmabhṛtakabaidehakā ba kṛṣeyuḥ akṛṣntoabahīnaṃ dadyuḥ”  (Arthasastra, p. 185).

Several inscriptions from before the 8th century CE mention three main land types, 

(1) Homestead land – land used for residential purposes.

(2) Cultivable or cultivated land – Land actively used for agriculture.

(3) Fallow land – Previously cultivated land left uncultivated for fertility restoration.

Over time, additional classification emerged, including barren land (khila), waterlogged wasteland hajjika khilabhūmi), and grazing lands (gobāṭa, gocara, gopatha), certain lands, such as brahmaraṇya (reserved for brahmins) and tapovana (hermitages for ascetics), were set aside for religious purposes.

Conclusion

          

    Various types of land were granted to Brahmins, temples, and monasteries, reflecting the increasing need for land as Brahmanical religion and Buddhist monastic institutions expanded. Kings facilitated this process and religious settlements thrived under their patronage. 

                                                -------------------------------

References   

Sharma, Ram Sharan. Indian Feudalism: c. 300-1200. Calcutta (now Kolkata): University of Calcutta, 1987 (Rpt.). (1st edn. 1965). 

Sircar, Dinesh Chandra. Indian Epigraphy. Delhi (now New Delhi): MLBD, 1996 (Rpt.). (1st edn. 1956).

-, - (ed.). Select Inscriptions Bearing the Indian History and Civilization: From the Sixth Century B.C. to the Sixth Century A.D. (Vol. 1). Calcutta (now Kolkata): University of Calcutta, 1942.

Rai, Jaimal. The Rural Urban Economy and Social Changes in Ancient India. Delhi (now New Delhi): Bhāratiya Vidyā Prakāshan, 1974.

Apte, Vaman Shivram (comp. and ed.). The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: MLBD, 1975.

Mukherjee, Ramaranjan and Sachindra Kumar Maity (eds.). Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing on History and Civilization of Bengal. Calcutta (now Kolkata): Firma K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1967.

Kautilya. Arthasastra. (Ed.) Radha Govinda Basak. Calcutta (now Kolkata): General Printers and Publishers Private Limited, 1996 (6th edn.). (1st edn. part-I 1950 and part-II 1951).

Manu. Manusaṃhitā. (Ed. and Beng. trans.) Manabrndu Bandhyopadhyay. Calcutta (now Kolkata): Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1419 BS [-2012 C.E.]. (3rd edn.). [1st edn. 1410 BS (=2003 C.E.)].

Tripathi, Snigdha. Inscription of Oeissa: Circa Fifth-Eight Centuries A.D. (Vol. 1). Delhi (now New Delhi): MLBD and Indian Council of Historical Research, 1997.

-, - Inscription of Orissa: Inscription of The Bhauma-Karas. (Vol. 2). Delhi (now New Delhi): Indian Council of Historical Research & Pratibha Prakashan, 2000.

Shrigondekar, Gajanan K (ed.). Mānosollāsa. (Vol. 1). (Gaekwad's Oriental Series, 28). Baroda: Central Library, 1925.

Roy, Niharranjan. Bāṅālīr(a) Itihās(a): ādiparva. Kolkata: Days, 1959.

Gopal, Lalanji. The Economic Life Of Northern India: c. A.D. 700-1200, Delhi: MLBD, 2013. (Reissued of 1" edn. 1965).

Cowell, E. B. (ed.). The Jätaka Or Stories Of The Buddha's Former Births. (Vol. II). (Eng. trans.) W.H.D. Rouse. Delhi (now New Delhi): Cosmo Publication, 1973 (Rpt.). (1" edn. 1895).

Sarkar, Debarchana. Nityakaler(a) Tui Puratan(a): Selected Sanskrit Inscriptions. Kolkata: West Bengal State Book Board, 2013.

Gupta, Kamalakanta (ed. with trans. and notes). Copper Plate Of Sylhet: 7th-11th Century A.D. East Pakistan (now Bangladesh): Lipika Enterprises Ltd, 1967.

Sircar, Dinesh Chandra. Ṥilālekha-Tāmraśāsanādir prasanga. Kolkata: Sahityalok, 2009 (2nd edn.). (1st edn. 1982).

Kshemendra. Deśapadeśa & Narmamālā. (The Kashmir Series of Carts and Studies, 40). (Ed. with preface and introduction) Madhusüdan Kaul Shästri. Poona: Aryabhüsan Press, 1923.

Yanjavalkya. Yañjavalkya Samhitā. (Ed. with Beng. Trans. and notes by Sumita Basu). Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhander, 1407 BS [-2000 C.E.].

Majumdar, Nani Gopal (ed. with trans. and notes). Inscription of Bengal: Containing Inscriptions of the Candras, the Varmanas and the Senas, and isvaraghosa and Damodara. (Intro.) Debarchana Sarkar. Kolkata: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 2003. (new edn.). (1 edn. 1928).

Sarma, Dimbeswar (ed.). Kāmarüpaśāsanāvalī. (Eng. trans.) Premadhar Chowdhury, Rajani Kanta Deva Sarma and Dimbeswar Sarma. Gauhati: Publication Board Assam, 2003 (2nd edn.). (1* edn. 1981). 

Journal

Shastri, Hirananda. "Nalanda Copper Plate of Devapaladeva". No. 17. In: Epigraphia Indica. (Vol. 17). Ed. H. Krishna Sastri. New Delhi: Manager Government of India Central Publication Branch, 1923.310-327.

Sircar, Dinesh Chandra. "Kendupatna Plates of Narasimha II". No. 33. In: Epigraphia Indica. (Vol. 28). (Pt. 5). Ed. B. CH. Chhabra. Delhi (now New Delhi): Manager of Publications, 1958. 185-191..  

*** I earnestly request my esteemed and kind readers to kindly share your valuable opinion. *** Good Night.👃

                                                    -----------