Indian Antiquary Vol 51

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 86

78
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(APRIL, 1022
(6) where water-reservoirs (odpi) with lands are granted, e.g., the Insc. of. Siladitya67, che Insc. of Dharasena68, the Insc. of Silâditya69, etc.
(c) In Inse. which record grants of villages without specifying the nature of the land alienated, e... Inso. of Dhruvaraja7o, Insc of Karkarája?!, Insc. of Dadda7, Insc. of Sri-Harya73, Insc. of Dhruvasena?4, the Insc. of Govindaraja76 etc. In some of these inscriptions the expression tri sata kar ayatah occurs, which shows that these villages also included cultivable fields.
(d) In Inscriptions which specify the nature of the land alienated, e.g., the Khâlimpur Insc., the Mongyr Copper Plate Insc.79, the Bhâgalpur Cop. Pl. Insc?, the Bângad Ins., 78 the Monholi Insc.79
It should also be noted that the expression is not used in many inscriptions which record one or other kinds of grants mentioned above.
It thus follows from the above that the expression bhimicchidranyaya is loosely used in the inscriptions between 400 A. D. and 1200 A. D. In earlier times the expression seems to have involved a special meaning, namely, "concerning lands other than the habitat with cultivable tracts," but in course of time its import must have undergone a change ; and it might have been, as well, used as an "inscriptional cant," having no particular meaning. With these reservations the expression may be thus translated : "according to the custom or rule pertaining to (i) alienation of, or (ii) settlement of boundaries of, land in general (usually, other than the habitat)."
As to the custom or rule" we should bear in mind the injunctions of the Dharmasastras relating to donation of lands to Brahmans, as well as the injunction of Kautilya relating to organisation of uncultivable tracts. As to "settlement " of boundaries of land we should remember that it was not easy to define the limits of villages where such natural objects as rivers, pools, etc., were wanting. According to the Dharmasastras these were to be fixed by trees, shrubs, bamboos, tanks, wells, stones and bones in places where there was no river or any such clearly defined limit 80. It is highly interesting to note that the boundaries of villages of the inscriptions were exactly like those described in the Dharmasastras. We may take some examples: in the Insc. of Yadava king Seunachandra, 81 a vata tree and a water-reservoir 82 form boundary marks. In the Insc. of Vişnugopavarman stones serve the same purpose 83. In some cases the lands of one village are described as the boundaries of another 84. Such being the character of boundary-marks it is but natural that disputes concerning them should not 67 Prac, Lek. III, 38 : Ep. Ind., V, 76.
ug Ibid. III, 174 : 1.A., VIL, 69. co Ibid. II, 236 : 1.A., XIV, 229.
70 Ibid. I, 15 : 1.A., XII, 181. 71 Ibid. 1, 21: 1.A., XII, 158.
72 Ibid. II, 46 : 1.A., XIII, 88. 73 Ibid. II, 76.
74 Ibid. II, 81. 76 Ibid. III, 123: Ep. Ind., III, 54.
76 Gaudalekhamdia, 39. 77 Ibid. 61.
78 Ibid. 97. 79 Ibid. 153.
80 Mona, VIII, 246-251. 11 Prdchina Lekhandla 11, 14.
13 cr. Manu, VIII, 246, 247 : Nimduikerar la lumita nyagrodhuattha bir fuldn ilmalfriedlandlaska koirişascaiva pidapdgulmán ventrica vividhan tomalliathalani ca faran kubabagulador da tad lima Na nadyati.
A3 Cf. Manu, VIII, 250 : afındnaathini gobalam sturdn bhasmaka pdlikda Karipamietaktingar Hicharkard volwhdatatha.
* Prach Lek. II, 40.