The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c11.t24.3

c11.t24.3

In Athens land belonged to the state. In Maurya India certain passages of the *Artha-śâstra* may lend color to the hypothesis as to the "public ownership" of the chief "agent of production". If Kautilya's statements may be taken as "positive law" on the subject, both land and water belonged to the government. The people could exercise their proprietary right in regard to all other species of property excepting these two.² But, on the other hand, this position will appear to be inconsistent with the fact noted above that two distinct items were enumerated as land-revenue from the *râṣṭra* or country districts of the empire. The *sîtâ* was the income from the crown-lands, and was therefore rent. The other realization was specifically known as *bhâga*, the "share" of the state in the "produce" of the people's lands. The private proprietors were known as *sva-vîryopajîvinah*. Besides, the right of private property in real estate was clearly recognized in the law of sales. According to the legislation in the *Artha-śâstra*,³ village lands were to be sold in the presence of forty neighbors who owned land in the vicinity. The state could demand only the legitimate excise on the sale. The same proprietary right is to be inferred from, though also limited by, the ruling that lands could be sold by cultivators only to cultivators, and that persons enjoying revenue-free lands could sell them only to persons who already possessed such lands. The distinction between crown-lands and private lands is also to be noted in the law of escheat. By the general law on the subject the rights of ownership over houses, fields, gardens, tanks and temples were forfeited if proprietors took no cognizance for a continuous period of five years.¹