Local publication of pre-sale notice was required on the land itself; distant service did not satisfy the Regulation.

Section 28, para. 2 of Regulation VIII of 1819 was construed as requiring publication of the pre-sale notice on the land to be sold, or at its principal town or village if no local katcheri exists. Publication at a distant katcheri or mere personal service did not satisfy the statutory purpose of informing under-lessees and prospective bidders. On the facts, the notice was not published at Amerpore or elsewhere on the land in question, and service on a co-sharer at another katcheri did not cure the defect. The omission was treated as a material irregularity capable of invalidating the sale.

---

---

Issues: (i) What is the true construction of Section 28, para. 2 of Regulation VIII of 1819 as to the place and manner of publication of notice before sale; (ii) whether the notice procedure adopted by the selling zemindar satisfied the Regulation.

Issue (i): What is the true construction of Section 28, para. 2 of Regulation VIII of 1819 as to the place and manner of publication of notice before sale

Analysis: The Regulation required the copy or extract of the notice to be sent for publication at the katcheri or at the principal town or village on the land of the defaulter. The provision was construed as insisting on publication on the land sought to be sold, so that the notice would reach under-lessees and prospective bidders. Publication at any distant katcheri of the defaulter, or mere personal service, would not answer the statutory purpose.

Conclusion: The expression refers to publication on the land to be sold, or at the principal town or village on that land if no such katcheri exists, and not to any katcheri wherever situated.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice procedure adopted by the selling zemindar satisfied the Regulation

Analysis: The prescribed local publication was not made at Amerpore or anywhere on the land in question. Service on a co-sharer at a katcheri in another place did not cure the omission. The statutory process was treated as a substantial safeguard, and failure to observe it amounted to material irregularity for which the putnidar could plead. Earlier decisions were distinguished or declined as authority for dispensing with the required formality.

Conclusion: The notice procedure did not satisfy the Regulation and the omission was a material irregularity.

Final Conclusion: The sale was not shown to have been conducted in accordance with the statutory preliminaries, so the appeal failed and the High Court's affirmation of the sale's invalidity stood.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a local mode of publication as a safeguard before a summary sale, that formality must be strictly observed; failure to publish the notice on the land concerned, or at the prescribed local place, constitutes a material irregularity that can invalidate the sale.

---