Q: 98 (CAPF/2010)

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.
According to the passage, the permanent settlement vested ;