Our ancestors built beautiful abodes for our Gods and celebrated the Almighty enshrined in the temples by selflessly contributing material wealth. Over centuries, the temples have been the beneficiaries of generous offerings, and temple activities flourished through endowments created by devotees ranging from kings and noblemen to common folks, who donated not only cash, gold and ornaments but also land. There are many inscriptions that record land grants to temples.
At some point, they accumulated so much land, both agricultural and non-agricultural, in close vicinity and far-off, that eventually the temple administration had to appoint officers to take care of the land and their yield. In addition, to manage, maintain and ensure revenue generation from the land, the temple administration had to establish norms and systems that in many ways seem to be not so different from the present-day scenario.
Encroachment of land appears to be an offence since time immemorial. History tells us that even in those days, temple properties had to be protected from encroachers, rent defaulters had to be handled, and the temple’s ownership rights had to be legally fought for if needed. Several inscriptions in the temples of Tamil Nadu elaborate such scenarios and also document the ways they were dealt with. Let us take a look at a few.
Once a survival trait, land-grabbing gradually spread with every human civilisation, and man eventually became opportunistic. The offender is to be punished, but what if a buyer who is unaware of the ownership is eventually living there? Is he to be treated as an offender too? Will there be a compensation for him if he is asked to vacate the land? Well, a case documented in 1203 CE at the Tiruvannamalai temple during the reign of Kulottunga Chola III elaborates on such an instance.
The temple administration decided to sell some plots of land in their Tirumadavilagam. To their surprise, they found the land encroached upon by settlers who had paid for it to some unscrupulous person. The temple administration investigated and considered the occupants not guilty and even promised to pay them half the share of the land sales. The remaining half alone was deposited in the temple coffers. If the encroachers did not agree to this, they had to forfeit the ownership and were to be fined double. This is an incident quite rare wherein the verdict was reached on humanitarian grounds rather than a tight-fisted authoritarian one.
Institutions providing accommodation to the employees during their period of service is not a new concept either. Royal officials, temple servants, noblemen, priests and several others seem to have enjoyed such privileges. However, the privileges were terminated when they retired from service and the individuals could not own the rights to the property and as an extension, could not mortgage, sell or sublease the property. A 1228 CE inscription from the Sthanumalayan Temple, Sucheendram, lists out the norms for employees to be bestowed with such privileges. The inscription identifies Brahmadeyams (residential colonies for the Brahmins), mutts and agricultural lands distributed under various capacities to its employees. It elaborates that the beneficiary can enjoy the produce from the fields and stay in the residence allotted. But selling, leasing or mortgaging the land or property shall lead to a fine of 12 kalanju and 5 kaanam of gold.
There is yet another interesting case of how even the local administration was found guilty of unauthorised occupancy of temple lands. An early Chola inscription from Tirukkollikadu states that the village assembly of Marayamangalam had occupied temple lands for a period of 35 years. Following a petition for enquiry to the king, a royal officer investigated the issue and fined the assembly a penalty of 400 kaasu as opposed to the 200 kaasu that is usually levied. Apart from returning the land, the assembly also paid the entire penalty due to the state for unauthorised occupancy (No. 139, Annual Reports on Epigraphy, 1935-36).
Civil disputes such as land ownership issues among the public can run for years and even eternity at the court of laws. One such case between two settlements adjoining Tiruverumbur (near Tiruchy) ended in an interesting climax, and is documented in the Tiruverumbur temple. Fields on the Kaveri banks would often get flooded and the fences washed away. On one such occasion, Srikanta Chathurvedi Mangalam and the Ur of Tiruverumbur fought a legal battle over the rights of a piece of land.
As the case dragged on, the local chieftain came up with an innovative solution that benefited both the parties. He bought the ownership of the disputed land from the two parties, paying the price that was satisfactory to both. In turn he offered the ownership to the Lord at the temple of Tiruverumbur and created an endowment wherein the revenue from the land offered to the deity was to be used to remunerate the temple musicians.
This is indeed a rare case of how a land dispute was resolved to the utmost satisfaction of both the parties. By endowing it to the temple and ensuring a dharmic activity from the land yield, this philanthropic chieftain found a place for himself in the history of the Tiruverumbur temple.
Misappropriation of temple lands is a persistent issue even in the present day, one that governing authorities still struggle to tackle. They could probably take a leaf out of the lessons from the past that are etched in our temple inscriptions, think out of the box and come up with innovative ideas to reclaim encroached property.
Madhushudhanan Kalaichelvan
Architect, serves on the govt-instituted panel for conservation of temples in TN
(madhu.kalai0324@gmail.com)