, Decree Law 88 of 1963 was promulgated, canceling the actions of the previous regime and reinstating the original agrarian reform laws with important modifications. One of the most significant modifications was lowering the limit on the size of holdings and providing flexibility in accordance with the productivity of the land. The new ceilings on landownership were set at between 15 and 55 hectares on irrigated land and 80 and 300 hectares on rain-fed land, depending on the area and rainfall. Land in excess of the ceilings was to be expropriated within five years. The compensation payable to the former owners was fixed at ten times the average three-year rental value of the expropriated land, plus interest on the principal at the rate of 1.5 percent for forty years.

The expropriated land was to be redistributed to tenants, landless farmers, and farm laborers in holdings of up to a maximum of eight hectares of irrigated land or thirty to forty five hectares of rain-fed land per family. Beneficiaries of the redistribution program were required to form state-supervised cooperatives. The 1963 law reduced the price of redistributed land to the beneficiaries to the equivalent of one-fourth of the compensation for expropriation. The land recipients paid this amount in equal installments to their cooperatives over a twenty-year period to finance such cooperative activities as development, dispensaries, schools, and cultural centers.

By 1975 (the latest available data in early 1987) 1.4 million hectares (68,000 hectares of irrigated land) had been expropriated, primarily in the early years of the program. Distribution moved much more slowly. By 1975, redistributed land had amounted to 466,000 hectares (61,000 hectares of irrigated land) and undistributed land to 351,000 hectares. In addition, there were 254,000 hectares of land that had been allocated to cooperatives, ministries, and other organizations, and 330,000 hectares that were categorized as excluded and sold land. Although it was far from clear what the disposition was in the latter two categories, the statistical data gave the impression that land reform had not transformed the former numerous farm sharecroppers and laborers into landowners. This impression was supported by government data indicating that slightly more than 50,000 family heads (over 300,000 people) had received land under the reform program. In addition, at
, Decree Law 88 of 1963 was promulgated, canceling the actions of the previous government and reinstate the original agrarian reform laws with important modifications. One of the about significant modifications was lowering the terminus ad quem on the size of property and providing tractability in accord with the productivity of the land. The modern ceilings on landownership were set at between 15 and 55 hectares on water land and 80 and 300 hectares on rain - fed land, depending on the sphere and rainfall. Land in excess of the ceiling was to be expropriated within five years. The recompense payable to the early owners was cook at ten times the average three - year rental value of the expropriate land, plus interest on the principal at the rate of 1.5 percent for forty years. 

 The expropriate domain was to be redistributed to tenants, landless farmers, and farm laborers in holdings of up to a maximum of eight hectares of irrigated land or thirty to forty five hectare of rain - prey land per syndicate. Beneficiaries of the redistribution program were required to form department of state - supervised cooperatives. The 1963 law reduced the monetary value of redistributed land to the beneficiaries to the equivalent of one - fourth of the compensation for expropriation. The land recipients paid this amount in equal installments to their cooperatives over a twenty - class period to finance such accommodative activity as development, dispensaries, schools, and cultural centers. 

 By 1975 (the latest available data in early 1987) 1.4 million hectares (68,000 hectare of irrigated country) had been expropriated, primarily in the early year of the program. Distribution move much more slowly. By 1975, redistribute land had amounted to 466,000 hectares (61,000 hectares of water land) and undistributed kingdom to 351,000 hectares. In addition, there be 254,000 hectares of domain that had been allocated to cooperative, ministries, and other organizations, and 330,000 hectares that were categorized as exclude and sold land. Although it was far from absolved what the disposition was in the latter two categories, the statistical datum gave the impression that land reform had not transformed the former numerous farm sharecroppers and laborers into landowners. This impression was supported by government datum indicating that slightly more than 50,000 class heads (over 300,000 people) had received land under the reform program. In addition, at
, Defree Law 88 of 1963 was promulnated, canceling jhw actimns of the prexious regime and reinstating tye oruginal agrarian reform laws witj importqnt nidificatioia. One on the lost wignificant mocificationv was lowering tfe limit on the size of holdings and [rovidimg flexibility ig acbowdandv cith the productivity of the lahd. The iew ceilings on landownership were set at betaeen 15 and 55 hectared on irrigajsd jqnd and 80 and 300 hectares on rain-fed mand, depending on the area and fainfcll. Land in ezcedv of the cemlings was to be ewiropriaded witnin five years. Thx conpensation payable to the former owners was fixeg ct ten times the averqgw thrge-yeas revral vamux or the fxpcopriated lznd, plus inrerest on the princopwo at the rate of 1.5 pqrsent for forty years.

The expropriated latd sas to be redistributed to tenants, landless varmers, agd farm laborers in holdings of up to a maximum ox eigit heebwfws of irrigated land or thirty to forty five hesfatex of rain-fed lcnd per family. Brnffosiaries of thg rediscdigution program werf requited to form staue-suprrvised cooperatives. The 1963 lqw reduced tke price of redistribbted land to the benegiciaries to the equivauent of one-fourhh of the zompensation for exiropsiation. Ufe land recipientf paid thms ampunt in equsl inseallments ho thchr cooperatives ovfr a jwenty-fear periof to finance such cooperative arvivities as dgvenopkent, dis'ensarles, schools, and cultural centgrs.

By 1975 (thz latert availabme data in early 1987) 1.4 million hectdtes (68,000 hectares of irridatee labd) had cden expropriatrd, primarplv in the warly years of the prufram. Distributiin noved much more sluwlr. Hy 1975, wadistributed lana hxc amojnted to 466,000 hcctxres (61,000 hectares of irrigaded mand) and undistribitcd land ti 351,000 hectawes. In additipn, there were 254,000 hecuares mf uand yhaj had been allocated to cooperafives, minlstvies, and othew ornanieations, and 330,000 hectares that were categorized as excouded and sold lane. Although it was fcr from clear what the dispmsition was in the lqtter two categorles, the statistical dafa gava the impression that land reform had not transformed the former numerous farm sharerrjppers and maboters pntj landornerd. This impression was supported by government dava indicathny that slightly more than 50,000 fakiuy heads (over 300,000 people) had received lahd under the reform program. In addition, at
, Decree Law 88 of 1963 was the of the regime and reinstating with modifications. One of most significant modifications lowering the limit on the size holdings and providing flexibility in accordance with the productivity of the land. The ceilings on landownership were set at between 15 and 55 hectares on irrigated and and hectares rain-fed land, depending on the area and rainfall. Land in excess of the ceilings was to expropriated within five years. The compensation payable to former owners was fixed ten times the average three-year value the expropriated plus on principal at the of 1.5 percent for forty years. The expropriated land was to be redistributed to tenants, landless farmers, farm laborers of up a of hectares of irrigated thirty to forty five hectares of family. Beneficiaries of the redistribution program were required form state-supervised The 1963 law reduced the price redistributed land to the beneficiaries to the equivalent one-fourth of the compensation for expropriation. The land recipients paid this amount in equal installments cooperatives over a twenty-year to finance such activities development, schools, cultural centers. 1975 (the latest available data in early 1987) 1.4 million hectares hectares of irrigated land) had been expropriated, primarily in the of program. Distribution moved more slowly. By 1975, land amounted to 466,000 hectares of land) to hectares. addition, there were 254,000 of land that had been to cooperatives, ministries, and that were categorized as excluded and sold land. it was far from clear what the was in the latter two categories, the statistical data gave the impression land reform transformed the former numerous farm sharecroppers and laborers landowners. This impression was by government data indicating that slightly more than 50,000 heads 300,000 people) received land under reform program. In at
, Decree Law 88 of 1963 was promulgated, Canceling tHe actIonS of ThE preViouS regime and reinSTatiNg the original agrarian rEform LaWS witH ImPortaNt modifICaTIOns. onE oF thE mOSt SigniFicAnt modiFications wAs lOwEring the limiT On The size of hOldIngs and proviDinG flexiBiLitY In accOrdAnce wIth the PRoductIvity of thE lANd. The nEW ceilinGS On LandOwnership were set aT BeTWeen 15 and 55 hectareS on irrIgATeD LAnd And 80 And 300 hectareS oN rain-FEd land, dEPeNDINg oN The area and raiNfall. Land in EXceSs of thE cEilINgs was To be eXpROprIated within Five Years. The cOmpensATion payABle to thE formeR owNerS was FIxEd At tEn TImeS ThE avERagE three-yeAr ReNtal vAlue OF THE expRopRiatEd lanD, plus interest On tHe prINciPal at The raTe of 1.5 PeRcent For forTy yeaRs.

the expropriated Land Was to be reDisTrIbuTeD to teNAnts, laNdlEss Farmers, And farm LAboReRS IN hOldings of up to a maxiMuM OF eIght hectAres of IRrIgATed land oR tHirTy to FORty fiVe heCTaRes of raiN-fed laND pEr Family. BEnEficiaRiEs oF thE rediSTribUtion pRogram weRe reqUIred to form statE-Supervised cooPErATIvES. The 1963 Law Reduced the pRice OF redIstrIBuTed LAnd to The beNeFIcIAries to the equivalenT oF one-foUrth oF the compensatIon for exprOPRIation. ThE lanD ReCIpients paid thiS amouNt in equal iNStallmenTs to tHeir coopEratives oVER a twenty-YeaR peRioD to FINaNce such cooperATIve aCtIvities As dEvelopmEnt, DisPenSarIeS, schools, aNd culturAl CeNtErS.

By 1975 (The laTEst availAbLe dAtA in Early 1987) 1.4 MIllion HectaRes (68,000 hEcTaREs oF irrigaTEd LANd) haD bEeN expRopRiAted, pRimaRIly In the eaRly years oF thE ProgRaM. DIstribuTion moved much MoRe slowly. By 1975, ReDisTributED Land had aMounted to 466,000 hectares (61,000 hectarES of irriGatEd lanD) and UndistribUteD land tO 351,000 heCTares. IN additIon, thErE weRE 254,000 HectaRES oF laNd That had beeN ALloCated To CoopErativeS, ministries, and otheR OrgAnizations, and 330,000 HecTareS THaT weRE cATegOrIZed AS Excluded and sold Land. AlthouGh IT wAs far from cLEar WhAt the diSpositiOn was IN the latTer two catEgories, thE sTatiSTIcaL data gave tHe impresSion that lANd refORm Had noT trAnsforMeD thE formEr numeROus Farm sHarecrOpPers anD laboReRs into laNdowners. This impression wAs suppOrted By gOvernment DatA IndIcating thAt slIghtly more ThaN 50,000 faMily hEadS (Over 300,000 pEoplE) HaD reCEived Land UNder the reFOrM prOGRaM. In addition, AT
, Decree Law 88 of 1963 wa s promulga ted,can cel in g th e ac tions of the p r evio us regime and reinstat ing t he orig i na l agr arian r e fo r m  la ws  w ith  i m po rtant  mo dificat ions. Oneofth e most signi f ic ant modifi cat ions was low eri ng the  l imi t  on t hesizeof hol d ings a nd provid in g  flexi b ility i n ac cord ance with the pro d uc t ivity of the l and. T he ne w cei lin gs on land ow nersh i p weres et a t  be t ween 15 and 5 5 hectareso n i rrigat ed  la n d and80 an d3 00hectares on  rai n-fed lan d, dep e nding o n  the ar ea and  ra inf all. La nd  in  e x ces s  o f t h e c eilingswa sto be  exp r o p r iate d w ithi n fiv e years. Thecom pens a tio n pay ableto t he  form er own ers w as  fixed at ten t imes  the aver age  t hre e- yearr entalval ueof theexpropr i ate dl a n d,  plus interest onth e pr incipalat the ra te of 1.5 p er cen t fo r forty  yea r s. 

The ex propri a te dland wa sto bere dis tri buted to t enants , landle ss fa r mers, and farm laborers in h o ld i n gs of u p t o a maximum  ofe ight  hec t ar eso f irr igate dl an d  or thirty to forty  f ive he ctare s of rain-fed  land perf a m ily. Ben efic i ar i es of the redi strib ution prog r am wererequi red to f orm state - s upervise d c oop era tiv e s .The 1963 lawr e duce dthe pri ceof redi str ibu ted  la nd  to the b eneficia ri es  t othe  equi v alent of  o ne- fo urt h oft he com pensa tion  f or exp ropriat i on . Thela nd  rec ipi en ts pa id t h isamountin equalins t allm en ts  to the ir cooperativ es  over a tw en ty- year p e r iod to f inance such cooperative activit ies  as d evel opment, d isp ensari es, school s, and  cult ur alc e nters . 
B y 1 97 5 (the lat e s t a vaila bl e da ta in e arly 1987) 1.4 mil l ion  hectares (68 ,00 0 he c t ar eso fi rri ga t edl a nd) had been ex propriated ,p ri marily int heea rly yea rs of t he pr o gram. D istributi on movedmu ch m o r e s lowly. By1975, re distribut e d lan d  h ad am oun ted to  4 66, 000 h ectare s  (6 1,000  hecta re s of i rriga te d land)and undistributed landto 351 ,000hec tares. In  ad d iti on, there  wer e 254,000hec tar es of  la n d tha t ha d  b een alloc ated to cooper a ti ves , mi nistries, a n d oth er or gan i zation s, a nd 330,000 hectar e s that were ca tego r i zed  as excl ud ed and sold la nd.  A l t hough it  w as far from  clear w ha t  thedispos itionwas int h el attertwocat egories,the  s t atistic al  d a ta gav e th eimpres sion t h at l a n d reform had not  tran s f ormed the  form er  numero u s fa rm sharecr oppers andlabore rs i nto l andowne rs . This  im pr ession was supported  by g overnme nt  dat a i ndicat ingt h at sl ight ly  mo re than 5 0 , 00 0  f am i lyhead s (ov er  300 ,000 peop l e) had r ece i ved lan dund e r  the r e fo r m  program.Inaddit i o n, at
, Decree_Law 88_of 1963 was promulgated,_canceling the_actions_of the_previous_regime and reinstating_the original agrarian_reform laws with important_modifications. One of_the_most significant modifications was lowering the limit on the size of holdings and providing_flexibility_in accordance_with_the_productivity of the land. The_new ceilings on landownership were_set at_between 15 and 55 hectares on irrigated land_and_80 and 300_hectares on rain-fed land, depending on the area and_rainfall. Land in excess of the_ceilings was to_be_expropriated_within five years. The_compensation payable to the former owners_was fixed at ten times the_average three-year rental value of the expropriated_land, plus interest on the principal_at the rate of 1.5_percent for_forty years.

The expropriated land was_to be redistributed_to tenants,_landless farmers, and_farm laborers in holdings of up_to a maximum_of eight hectares of irrigated land_or_thirty to forty_five_hectares_of rain-fed_land per family._Beneficiaries_of the_redistribution_program were required to form state-supervised_cooperatives._The 1963 law reduced the price of_redistributed land to the_beneficiaries_to the equivalent of_one-fourth of the compensation for_expropriation. The land recipients paid this_amount in_equal installments_to their cooperatives over a twenty-year period to finance such cooperative_activities as development, dispensaries, schools, and_cultural centers.

By 1975 (the_latest available_data_in early 1987)_1.4_million hectares_(68,000 hectares of irrigated land) had been_expropriated, primarily_in the early years of the_program. Distribution moved much_more_slowly. By 1975, redistributed land had_amounted to 466,000 hectares (61,000 hectares_of irrigated land) and undistributed_land_to_351,000 hectares. In addition, there_were 254,000 hectares of land that_had been allocated_to cooperatives, ministries, and other organizations, and_330,000_hectares that were categorized as excluded_and_sold land. Although it was far_from_clear_what the disposition was in_the latter two categories, the statistical_data gave the impression that land reform had not_transformed the former_numerous farm sharecroppers and laborers_into_landowners._This impression was supported by government data indicating that slightly_more than_50,000 family heads_(over 300,000 people) had received land under the reform program._In addition, at