The Colas c29.25.2

c29.25.2

Such inferior land had a much better chance under temples of being improved and fertilised by persons who were ready to undertake the task as a labour of love; when improved in this manner the land usually yielded a better income to the temple than before.⁵⁵ In the reign of Rājarāja I the lands in a *dēvadāna* village belonging to the temple of Sucīndram were divided into two categories, on one of which the rental due from the tenants (*kāṇik-kaḍan*) was raised from 3 *kalams* per *mā* to 3 *kalams* and a *tūṇi*, while the other which could not pay such a rental was to be directly managed by the officers of the temple (*dēvakanmigaḷ*).⁵⁶ On the other hand, in some instances the tenants occupying temple lands seem to have held them on more favourable terms than others, or, at any rate, to have had better opportunities of getting the terms of their lease revised when necessary. Thus the *kāṇik-kaḍan* due from Mānābharaṇa-caturvēdimangalam to the Viṣṇu temple called after Rājēndracōḷa in Mannārkōyil was fixed at 3840 *kalams* and odd; this was found to be too high, and in consequence the Cēra Rājarāja-dēva added ten *vēlis* of land to the original extent, and fixed 2600 *kalams* as the annual rental on the whole village so extended.⁵⁷ Instances like this show clearly that a number of extra-economic considerations entered into the management of temple lands.