JUDGMENT Rampini, C.J. - This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hooghly in which he has set aside a sale held by the Collector of Hooghly for arrears of chowkidari assessment. He has held that the Collector had no jurisdiction to sell the land. It appears that the chowkidari assessment on some chowkidari chakran laud was in arrears for small sums due for three years. The total arrears came to Rs. 8-9-3. The Collector then issued a notice under sec. 6 of Act XI of 1859 and sold the land. 2. The Courts below have held that the Collector could not sell the land for the arrears of three years, but could sell it for the arrears of one year only and that the Collector should not have issued a notice under sec. 6, but under sec. 5 of Act XI of 1859 3. The Defendant, who is the auction-purchaser, appeals. It appears to as that the Collector had jurisdiction to sell the land. Sec. 55 of Act VI of 1870, which gives the Collector jurisdiction to sell, does not prohibit his selling the land for the arrears of more than one year. 4. The lower Courts observe that his powers are restricted by Form D which is the form of notice prescribed for the demand of arrears of chowkidari chakra land. This notice provides for the demand of one year's arrears and sec. 55 prescribes that unless the arrears are paid within the time specified in the notice, the Collector shall proceed to sell the land. Now, in this case it is not denied that notices in Form D were issued and duly served. It is not alleged that there was any irregularity in the notices. Three notices in Form D for each year's arrears were therefore presumably issued and served. The arrears due for each year must have been very small seeing that the total of the three years' arrears came to Rs. 8-9-3. The Collector then issued a notice, or notices under sec. 6. This would appear to be quite correct. Sec. 6 is the section under which notices should be issued when there is an arrears due for the current year as in this case. It is said the Collector should have issued a notice under sec. 5 of Act XI of 1859. 6. This would appear to be quite correct. Sec. 6 is the section under which notices should be issued when there is an arrears due for the current year as in this case. It is said the Collector should have issued a notice under sec. 5 of Act XI of 1859. But this is the section under which notices should be issued when the arrear are for years other than those of the current year. But even if the Collector issued a notice under sec. 6, when he should have issued one under sec. 5, this would appear to be a mere irregularity, which does not render the sale a nullity. Deonawdan Singh v. Manbodh Singh 8 C. W. N. 757: s. c. I. L. R. 32 Cal. III (1904)., Bagheswari pershad Singh v. Mahomed Gowhar Ali Khan 8 C. W. N. 649: s. c. I. L. R. 31 Cal. 256 (1903). Then, seeing that sec. 55 does not prohibit sales under the Act for more than one year's arrears, it does not appear to us that there was any illegality in his proceedings, which would render the sale by him in this case one without jurisdiction and a nullity. No doubt from the terms of sec. 55 it would seem to be intended that the Collector should proceed to sell the land, when the arrears of one year, for which a notice in Form D has been issued are not paid, but sec. 55 does not expressly lay down that this should be done, far less that if he waits till the insignificant arrears due for each year mount up to even so small a sum as Rs. 8 odd and then proceeds to sell, his proceedings are entirely null and void and without jurisdiction. It would seem to us that at the worst, the Collector's proceedings are irregular, but that the sale is not necessarily or ipso facto void. 5. 8 odd and then proceeds to sell, his proceedings are entirely null and void and without jurisdiction. It would seem to us that at the worst, the Collector's proceedings are irregular, but that the sale is not necessarily or ipso facto void. 5. The Respondents' pleader has called our attention to a passage in the judgment of the first Court, in which it is said that there was no arrear due for 1307, and that the Plaintiffs are proved to have paid it fully to one Mihir Lal Bhattacharya who was the collecting punchayet for that year; further, that the arrears for the other years were tendered to the punchayet but he would not take them, because he had already made a report to the Collector and that there is no reliable proof that he had made any such report. But it is not the case of the Plaintiffs that there was no arrears due for 1307, or for any year. They do not allege this in para. 7 of their plaint. As for their allegation that the tender of the arrears for other years were improperly refused by the punchayet, this point seems never to have been raised far less pressed in the Court below. There is nothing to show that the punchayet was wrong in refusing the arrears, which were evidently tendered too late, or that anything but actual payment or deposit of the arrears, can render a sale, under the provisions of Act VI of 1870, absolutely void. We accordingly decree this appeal with costs.