Land administration under Chola dynasty depended on the status of villages as Brahmadeya or non-Brahmadeya. Both types of villages had their own system of administration. The Brahmadeya villages were granted to Brahmins. Here, they formed an assembly called Sabha for the village administration. These Brahmadeya villages played a very important role in the local administration of the country. The majority of the villages of the period, however, were not Brahmadeya. The inhabitants of these non-Brahmadeya villages were not Brahmins and the village assembly called Ur was usually found there. As the majority villages of the period, these non-Brahmadeya villages formed the basic social sub-structure. They are thought to be older in origin than Brahmadeya villages. In order to study the system of land administration existing in these villages, certain villages have been referred to, namely the Isanamangalam (Brahmadeya village and Allur (non-Brahmadeya).

Donors or Sellers of Land
As regards the non-Brahmadeya villages, 4 kinds of donors or sellers can be ascertained. These include- Urar, Talaivachchanrar, Temple and Koyilar.

The meaning of Talaivachchanrar is not clear but it may refer to the persons who were responsible for the irrigation of land, in charge of the main sluice (Talaivay) of the water channel. It is said that waste land (Tidal) was purchased from a deity (temple) by some person and was donated back to the temple, after having been reclaimed. Koyilar is the person who belongs to a temple. This Koyilar might be the priest who was granted land as remuneration for his services. There is also a sure indication that non-individual landholding was prevalent. In other words, the connection between land and an individual person seems to have been very weak in Allur.

As to Isanamangalam, donors or sellers are classified as follows: Kilavar were perhaps the elders of the families of the village. They probably formed a central organization of the Sabha. `Group of persons` as the donors or sellers mean that the land had belonged to `such and such a person and others. A striking difference between Allur and Isanamangalam can easily be noted. In Isanamangalam more than half the pieces of land examined belonged to individual persons. The connection between land and an individual person is evidently strong in Isanamangalam and most of the land in the village was probably divided and held by individual persons who were presumably members of the Sabha. It cannot be denied, however, that some pieces of land were held in common by the members of the Sabha or Parudai.

Land Adjoining the Donated Land
When defining the boundaries of the land donated, the adjoining land is often said to be held by a number of others. In the non-Brahmadeya villages, two main categories of such land may be recognised. These are Chirukkalanceri and Aruma. The first group are the pieces of land which are specified by the mention of its name or the state of its utilization, or its area. The latter refers to the ones which are or seem to be connected with some person or with some deity. Among the lands connected to people are lands of the astrologers, cultivable or cultivated land, land belonging to dancers (Nilam), land of temple musicians, land for the secretary of the Sabha and others. All this clearly indicates that the connection between land and individual persons was very weak in non-Brahmadeya villages. The persons who held the land here were astrologers, dancers, musicians, and a secretary of the assembly, and it is presumed, therefore, that only the persons who rendered some special services to the villagers held land individually in remuneration.

In the Brahmadeya village, it is seen that of the adjoining lands, there are some lands named as Karikalakarai (probably just the name of land), land belonging to Parudai and the Devadana land. All the remaining pieces of land are connected with individual persons, and were apparently held by those persons individually. And in none of them is there any reason to believe that they were given for remuneration services. Thus in the Brahmadeya village, it would seem that most of the land was held individually, presumably by the members of Sabha. Some land was held in common by the members of Sabha or Parudai.

Administration of Ur lands
The division of crops between the landholders, the government and the cultivators throws light on the social structure of the community. It may be concluded that in Allur the land held by the members of Ur in common was cultivated by them and that the other land which belonged to the temple, astrologers, dancers, etc., seems to have been cultivated by the people other than the Ur members. The produce from the Ur members` land was divided into two parts, namely, the government`s share and the landholding cultivators` share, while the produce from the land held by the temple, astrologers, etc., must have been divided into three parts, namely, the government`s share, landholders` share and cultivators` share.