The Mauryan Polity c13.s12.40

c13.s12.40

(g) Megasthenes speaks of the state ownership of land. In other words, the king was the owner of all the lands as well as the soil of the state.¹ This is to deny the existence of private property as an institution. That there was the king's property as distinguished from private holdings no one can deny. Kauṭalya deals largely with crown lands and their regulations. Kauṭalya also mentions private holdings which are apparently communal as can be gathered from the prescriptions. In all disputes about boundary marks and fields and gardens it is the elders of the village or even neighbourhood who decided them. The state could only appropriate holdings which have ceased to be enjoyed by any person.² This means that unclaimed property became state property.³ In this connection attention may be drawn to the monograph of Bernhard Breloer, entitled *Kauṭaliya Studien I, Das Grundeigentum in Indien*, where he makes a comparative study of modern land revenue systems with those which obtained in the Maurya times as is evidenced by the Greek accounts and the *Arthaśāstra*.⁴ Megasthenes says: "Besides the land tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil."⁵ But Kauṭalya says that one-sixth of natural produce was to be paid to the king.⁶ Other rates were one-third or one-fourth. This means that land revenue varied from one-sixth to one-third according to the seasons. Megasthenes was apparently not able to distinguish between rent and tax. It is possible that he was not aware of the legal conditions prevailing in the land. If what Megasthenes said refers only to crown lands, then there is agreement between the *Indika* and the *Kauṭalīya*.¹