The Calcutta Law Journal June 16 1912

I have known it repeatedly attempted in moffusil Courts but very seldom proved." If we look to the Law Reports we will seldom find a case where it has been held that the custom of the transferability of occupancy holdings has been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. [...] It is also well-known that before the passing of the Rent Law of 1859 the rights of the raiyats were not defined and extremely uncertain. [...] But whatever this may be it is certain that before the passing of the Rent Law of 1859 a landlord could and did almost at his pleasure rid himself of objectionable tenants." As a matter of fact therefore the position of a raiyat whether a Khudkast or Paikast was very precarious. [...] Act X of 1859 no doubt did away with the distinction of Khudkast and Paikast raiyats and introduced the expregions of 'occupancy' and non-occupancy' but we find that the old distinction still remains for the purpose of Regulation VIII of 1819. [...] We think that this will most effectually prevent the raiyat and his holding from falling into the hands of the Mahajan ; and that the danger which some persons apprehend of Mahajans becoming the owners of occupancy holdings while the quondam raiyats will remain on the land in a degraded condition of serfage will thus to a considerable extent be.