daijr, nikk: https://kotobank.jp/word/領-483871

@@ -11 +10,0 @@
-<pos>&suf;</pos>
@@ -13 +12,2 @@
-<gloss>territory of (country)</gloss>
+<pos>&n-suf;</pos>
+<gloss>territory (of country, feudal domain, etc.)</gloss>

@@ -16,0 +17 @@
+<xref type="see" seq="2080720">両・りょう・7</xref>

It's a fine line between being informative, making things searchable, and avoiding a mess. 
I think what Dine has proposed is fine, but I think it's also OK to add this as a sense in the 両 entry, which I have just done. I'll add an xref as well.

@@ -17 +17 @@
-<s_inf>also written 両</s_inf>
+<misc>&arch;</misc>

I don't get the point of things like  [note="also written 両"]
My impression is that this dictionary is not trying to be 
prescriptive as much as descriptive (which makes absolute sense 
for a bilingual dictionary).

but what use is it for somebody looking up 領 to know that the 
word can also be written 両 in certain cases? When this won't 
appear for somebody actually searching for 両? This seems 
suddenly prescriptive, "you can also use this character" - but 
actually it's in many cases NOT prescriptive, or shouldn't at 
least be read like it, though it will, because the "also 
written" word is usually quite obscure and not something a 
learner of Japanese should be using at all.

So the notes are doubly worthless - they don't help people 
actually looking for all meanings of 両, and they don't help 
people looking up 領 either.