The question is based on the following passage : The permanent settlement vested the land ownership right in the zamindars, who previously enjoyed only revenue collecting rights. Therefore, those who lost out in this settlement were the peasants, who were left at the mercy of the zamindars. The customary occupancy right was ignored and they were reduced to the status of tenants. The provision of patta, or written agreement between the peasant and the zamindar providing a record of the amount of rent to be paid, was rarely followed by the zamindars. Nor was it liked by the peasants who always feared to lose in any formal record of rights and obligations, The burden of high revenue assessment was thus shifted to the peasants, who were often also called upon to pay illegal cesses. The subsequent regulations of 1799 and 1812 gave the zamindars the right to seize property of the tenants in case of non-payment of rent without any permission of a court of law. It is no wonder, therefore, that as a cumulative effect of this support to the coercive power of the zamindars, the condition of the actual cultivators declined under the Permanent Settlement. Before the permanent settlement the peasants enjoyed :

According to the provided passage, before the Permanent Settlement of 1793, peasants enjoyed 'customary occupancy rights' which were subsequently ignored as they were reduced to the status of tenants. Historically, while zamindars were originally tax collectors or intermediaries, the cultivators were often recognized as the owners of the land [3]. The Permanent Settlement fundamentally altered this by vesting absolute land ownership rights in the zamindars, who previously only held revenue-collecting rights [2]. Under the new system, the zamindars became hereditary owners, and the peasants were left at their mercy, losing their traditional security over the land [3]. The passage explicitly states that the customary occupancy right was ignored during the transition, confirming that these rights existed prior to the settlement. Consequently, the shift from customary rights to a precarious tenancy status led to significant agrarian distress and exploitation.

Sources

1. [3] Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 5: Land Reforms > Features: > p. 191
2. [1] History , class XI (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 17: Effects of British Rule > 17.2 Land Tenures: Permanent Settlement and Ryotwari Settlement > p. 266
3. [2] Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 10: Land Reforms in India > 1. Zamindari System (Permanent Settlement) > p. 337