Mandatory notice and recovery steps govern estate sale for arrears; defective auction and non-service rendered the sale invalid.

Strict compliance with the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 was required before sale of an estate for arrears. The notices of demand and sale were invalid because the record did not prove personal service, valid substituted service, or proper publication, so the sale process failed at the root. The State also could not resort to sale of immovable property without first attempting attachment and sale of movables, and the auction lacked the publicity and competitive process needed to secure the best price. The sale was therefore contrary to the statutory scheme and unconstitutional, and the appellants' rights were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sale of the estate and the notices of demand and sale were validly effected in accordance with the mandatory procedure under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886; (ii) Whether the State could sell the estate for recovery of a small arrear without first exhausting the remedy of attachment and sale of movables and without ensuring a proper auction process.

Issue (i): Whether the sale of the estate and the notices of demand and sale were validly effected in accordance with the mandatory procedure under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required service of demand and sale notices in the prescribed manner before any sale of the estate could be undertaken. The record did not establish personal service, valid substituted service, or proper compliance with the prescribed publication requirements. In the absence of proof of effective notice, the proceedings were conducted behind the landholders' back. Such non-service was not a mere procedural irregularity but a failure that went to the root of the sale process.

Conclusion: The notices and the ensuing sale proceedings were invalid, and this issue is answered in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could sell the estate for recovery of a small arrear without first exhausting the remedy of attachment and sale of movables and without ensuring a proper auction process.

Analysis: The Regulation treated sale of immovable estate as an extreme measure, permissible only when recovery through movables was insufficient. The materials did not show a genuine prior attempt to recover the dues by attachment and sale of movables. The auction also lacked adequate publicity and did not demonstrate a bona fide competitive process designed to secure the best price. A sale of valuable land for a nominal sum, without the statutory preconditions being satisfied, could not be sustained. The action also offended the constitutional protection against deprivation of property except by authority of law.

Conclusion: The sale was contrary to the statutory scheme and unconstitutional, and this issue is answered in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The auction sale and the consequential High Court orders could not stand, and the Board's decision restoring the appellants' rights was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a mandatory sequence for recovery of arrears, the State must strictly comply with notice requirements and first exhaust less drastic remedies before resorting to sale of immovable property; a sale held without such compliance and without a bona fide competitive auction is void.

---