Regarding the taxation system of Krishna Deva, the ruler of Vijayanagar, consider the following statements : 1. The tax rate on land was fixed depending on the quality of the land. 2. Private owners of workshops paid an industries tax. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Describes a precedent (Cholas) where extensive land surveys classified land and varied the standard veli according to fertility and number of crops for tax assessment.

A student could infer that South Indian polities had a tradition of classifying land by fertility, so they should check if Vijayanagar followed similar survey/classification practices under Krishnadevaraya.

States explicitly (for the Marathas/Peshwas) that fertility of the land was assessed for fixation of taxes and land was settled against a stipulated annual amount.

Use this as a regional administrative pattern (Deccan polities) and investigate if Vijayanagar employed fertility-based assessment in comparable settlements.

Gives a general South Indian pattern that land revenue varied (e.g., 1/6th to 1/10th) and was collected based on produce, implying assessment tied to productivity.

A student could treat this as evidence of variable share systems and look for Vijayanagar records to see if rates were similarly tied to yield/land quality.

Describes the Mughal/Zabt model where money rates were fixed per unit area according to crops — an example of land-tax fixation based on measured productivity/crop type.

Compare administrative techniques: if Vijayanagar used area-and-crop assessments like Zabt, quality-based fixation is plausible; check for Vijayanagar equivalents of measurement or crop-based rates.

Modern textbook note that land revenue fixation is generally done by classifying land types and using average yield/value — a general rule linking classification and tax fixation.

Use this general rule as a methodological guide: seek Vijayanagar-era evidence of land classification or yield estimates to support or refute the claim.