( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal (MRAT) in Appeal No. 1393 of 1970 (MLR ). It arises in this way: the petitioner was a surety to the second respondent herein in respect of a loan of Rs. 250 which had been borrowed by him from the Government on 23-6-1961. It would appear that the second respondent was a defaulter in regard to a sum of Rs. 150 concerning such loan. The properties of the petitioner were brought to sale. It is not disputed that such dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the appropriate provisions of the mysore Land Revenue Act. The two properties in question are S. No. 67 admeasuring 2 acres, 3 guntas and S. No 117 admeasuring 8 acres. Both these properties are situated in Guttageri Village, Haliyal Taluk and belong to the petitioner. These two properties were also included at the time of attachment in respect of the recovery of the debt in question. S. No. 67, smaller in extent, had been valued at Rs. 3,300 and S. No. 117 which is larger of the two had been valued at Rs. 4,016. These properties were brought to sale on 16-1-1970 and the first respondent herein was the successful bidder. It would appear that the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, without actually depositing the amount as per S. 176 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner is stated to have made an order directing the Tahsildar to accept the amount and cancel the sale. Thereafter, nothing appears to have been done pursuant to this direction to the Tahsildar. The petitioner, however, deposited the amount with solatium and such other dues on 22-6-1970 and made an application for setting aside the sale. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dt. 20-7-1970 set aside the sale. The first respondent, however, took the matter in appeal before the, MRAT in Appeal No. 1393/70 (MLR ). The said Tribunal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner thus dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the sale. The result was that the sale stood confirmed. Hence this petition by the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in holding the sale, the authorities had transgressed the requirements of S. 173 of the Mysore Land revenue Act. The result was that the sale stood confirmed. Hence this petition by the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in holding the sale, the authorities had transgressed the requirements of S. 173 of the Mysore Land revenue Act. The said provision reads thus:" 173. Sale not to be excessive. The property to be sold moveable or immoveabie, under the provisions of this chapter, shall, as far as may be practicable, be proportionate to the amount of arrear of land revenue to be recovered and the expense of attachment and sale". It is clear from the above provision that the property to be sold must have some co-relation to the amount that ought to be recovered. In other words, only a portion of the property which is necessary to be sold for the recovery of the dues must first be sold. In the instant case, it is seen that S. No. 67 which is small and is of lesser value than S. No. 117 has not in fact been sold. This requirement clearly had not been complied with in the case. On behalf of the first respondent, it is contended that S. No. 67 had been, in fact, brought to sale and the same was not sold as there were no bidders. In regard to this the averment in the counter-affidavit is thus: "perhaps if there were bidders and if it had been sold S. No. 117 would not have been sold. But none present came forward to purchase s. No. 67. The petitioners could have brought bidders for S. No. 67, or he could have deposited the amount. Both the lands were liable for sale for satisfaction of the dues. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to complain against the sale of S. No. 117, that too when there were no bidders for the other item No. 67 which was tried to be sold first". ( 3 ) IT is clear from the above averment that the first respondent was not quite certain whether S. No. 67 was at all put up for sale. But be that as it may, the records of the sale have been made available by the learned High Court government Pleader. ( 3 ) IT is clear from the above averment that the first respondent was not quite certain whether S. No. 67 was at all put up for sale. But be that as it may, the records of the sale have been made available by the learned High Court government Pleader. It is clear from the relevant writings therein, that one of the reasons given for putting up S. No. 117 for sale was that it would be sufficient for the recovery of the debt due. It is no doubt stated therein that there was no demand for S. No. 67. This is not to say S. No. 67 had been put up for sale. It may be that at the time of sale, the persons interested might have asked for putting for sale S. No. 117 in the first instance. Any way the matter is clearly shrouded in doubt. It is next contended on behalf of the first respondent that it is at best an irregularity and in the absence of prejudice to the petitioner, the sale should not be interfered with. In support of such a contention, reliance was placed on an enunciation of the Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam v. Shyam Bellari, AIR 1971 SC 2337 . That case is clearly of no assistance to the first respondent at all. That was a case where the Court was concerned with an allegation of material irregularity on the ground that the price realised was inadequate. Indeed the enunciation relied on occurs at paragraph 10 of the report and reads thus :"barring the report no evidence whatsoever was led by the appellant to show that his share in the said property was worth Rs. 20,000 and that therefore the price realised at the auction was inadequate. The Division Bench was, in our view, right in holding that the appellant had failed to show inadequacy of the price or that such inadequacy was occasioned by the said material irregularity " ( 4 ) THE contention before me has no bearing at all on the question of adequacy or inadequacy of the price fetched at the sale in question. But it is contended further that the infringement of S. 173 of the Mysore Land Revenue act would at best amount to an irregularity. I am unable to accept this sub-mission. But it is contended further that the infringement of S. 173 of the Mysore Land Revenue act would at best amount to an irregularity. I am unable to accept this sub-mission. It seems to me that having regard to this provision, even putting up for sale the entire S. No. 117 is open to objection. A portion thereof could have been put up if it was convenient. Be that as it may, it is clear that the other property belonging to the petitioner was smaller in extent and lesser in value. It was the duty of the parties holding the sale to have put that up for sale in due compliance with the requirements of S. 173 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. ( 5 ) IN this connection, it is relevant to note that such a contention based on S. 173 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act was in fact urged before the mrat and had been referred to; but it is seen from the order that nowhere such a contention has been dealt with, one way or the other. For all these reasons the order of the MRAT cannot be sustained. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the mrat in Appeal No. 1393/70 (MLR) is set aside. The order of the Assist. Commissioner is restored. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .