72 SOCIAL SCIENTIST The growth of sub-infeudation went on unchecked until it reached the limit where no more agrarian surplus was left. This multi-tiered tenurial structure appropriated most of the surplus with the zamindar receiving a small fraction. This surplus did not come back to agrarian production which accounts for its underdevelopment (pp. 32-35). The processes and causes leading to sub-infeudation have been discussed in some detail, the major being the purchase of estates by new zamindars during the early phase (till 1820), encroachment by mahajans and the emergent middle class on impoverished estates, and legal recognition given to intermediaries (till 1870). In terms of regional variations, the growth of sub-infeudation was spectacular in the deltaic zones where it reached nearly 80 per cent. It was related to numerous factors such as geography, ecological specificities, productivity, demography, cropping pattern, method of reclamation and rent level (pp. 35-44). The key role was played by the haoladar in the process of reclamation who provided the initial capital investment, but the process required participation of multiple parties who eventually came to acquire some degree of rights and interests in land, once the Settlement had taken place (pp. 47-57). The predominant social groups who acquired land control were amia or native officials, legal practitioners, and later Muslim agriculturists and Hindu Namasudras of the halia or cultivating caste (pp. 57-61). The increasing population which nearly trebled during the 19th century and rising prices which doubled during 1861-1900 accelerated the reclamation movement mostly through the hierarchic traditional tenurial interests (pp. 62-73). The last chapter is a case study of a village in Bakarganj district, and by far the most important contribution by Sirajul Islam despite the fragmentary nature of the available evidence. It brings to the surface the deep-rooted social contradictions. The number of estates in the village multiply during 1801 to 1859 by reclamation from 6 to 16, and outsiders infiltrate by perquisites and lobbying. During 1859-1900, some estates (11 in number) added land, others (about 8) lost, and the total number of estates reached 22 in 1901. Of the total village land, 82 per cent was controlled by five families only. Of the total revenue demand paid by the cultivators, the proprietors received only 6.4 per cent, the rest was all appropriated by intermediaries. As a result, intermediaries dominated the village society and economy. The actual cultivators (Karshadars) were the lowest class occupying the status of tenants-at-will. About 88 per cent of iheKarshadars had no operational holding. The average size of holding had dwindled from 3.58 acres in 1800 to a bare homestead at the end of the 19th century. Nearly half the Karshadars had an average holding of 0.26 acre, the other half 1.42 acres (pp. 79-108). Sirajul Islam concludes that sub-infeudation was simple during the 18th century but it became complex and institutionalised after the Pattni Regulation of 1819. The emergence of intermediate tenures was