( 1 ) QUESTIONS relating to the recovery of land revenue under the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1. 964 hereinafter referred to as the Act, fail for decision in this petition under Article 226. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is the owner of certain lands which are in the possession of his tenant. The land revenue payable in respect of the said lands for fasli years 1380 and 1381 was due from the petitioner. The Tahsildar, mangalore took action for recovery of the said land revenue, by issuing a prcclamation of sale of some other properties in the possession of the petitioner. Challenging the action of the Tahsildar petitioner has preferred this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE following twq contentions were urged for the petitioner. (1) That the Tahsildar before issuing a demand notice under S. 165 of the Act, should have taken recourse to the remedies provided under S. 161 of the Act; and (2) The liability to pay land revenue when it is in default is that of the tenant in possession of the lands and it has to be recovered from him. ( 4 ) THE first contention has already been considered and rejected by me in WP. 108/1971 and I therefore do not propose to deal with it again herein. ( 5 ) FOR the purpose of appreciating the second contention, it is necessary to set out S. 157. It provides:- 157. Liability for revenue.- it is seen from the above provisions that the holder of the land is primarily liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue, including all arrears due. Similar prqvision is found in the Karnataka Land reforms Act. S. 10 (b) of the said Act provides that the landlord is responsible for the payment of land revenue and Other taxes due in respect of his land. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 157 no doubt creates a liability on the tenant to pay the arrears of land revenue when it has not been paid by his landlord. But I dq not find any support for the contention from any provision in the Act that that land revenue which is in arrears should be recovered only from the tenant. The contention, if accepted, would lead to anomalous result. Every year, the landlord may conveniently commit default in payment of land revenue and ask the authorities to recover the same from the tenant. The contention, if accepted, would lead to anomalous result. Every year, the landlord may conveniently commit default in payment of land revenue and ask the authorities to recover the same from the tenant. That is not the scheme of the Act if one peruses the provisions of Ss. 160 to 165 of the Act. S. 160 provides that if land revenue or part thereof is not paid on the due date, the person primarily responsible for its payment shall be the defaulter. Under Section 1. 57 (1), the holder of the land is primarily liable for the payment of the land revenue. Therefore, if he has not paid the arrears, he becomes a defaulter. S. 162 provides that a notice of demand may be issued in the prescribed form to recover the arrears of land revenue from the defaulter. S. 161 sets out more than one procedure for recovery of arrears of land revenue. It may be recovered either by forfeiture of occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which the land revenue is due, or by distraint and sale of the defaulter's moveable property including the produce of the land or by attachment and sale of the defaulter's immoveable property. All these provisions and applicable to recover the arrears of land revenue from e defaulter who in the circumstances, is none other than the person who is primarily liable to pay the land revenue. Against this background, one must consider the scope and effect of sub- sec. (2) of S. 157. No doubt it states that in the case of default by any person who is primarily liable, the land revenue shall be recoverable from any person in possession of the land. It is needless to add that the employment of the verb shall is inconclusive and similarly mere absence of the imperative is not conclusive either. The question whether it is mandatory or directory has to be decided, particularly in the context of the other provisions of the Act and the general scheme thereof. Considered from these principles. I have no doubt that, the word' shall occurring in sub-sec. (2) is not a command to the revenue authorities to recover the arrears only from the tenant or from a person in possession of the land. ( 6 ) THE last contention urged for the petitioner relates to the amount demanded from the petitioner. Considered from these principles. I have no doubt that, the word' shall occurring in sub-sec. (2) is not a command to the revenue authorities to recover the arrears only from the tenant or from a person in possession of the land. ( 6 ) THE last contention urged for the petitioner relates to the amount demanded from the petitioner. It is said that put of the demand made by the authorities, a substantial portion of it has already been paid by the the petitioner. On this question it is stated on behalf of the respondents that what is due from the petitioner is only Rs. 267-65 and not Rs. 1,313-95 as demanded by the Tahsildar. In view of this statement, it is now necessary for the authorities to issue a fresh proclamation of sale to recover the sum of Rs. 267-65. While issuing the proclamation the authorities have to bear in mind the provisions of S. 173 of the Act which prqvides that the property to be sold, moveable or immoveable, under the provisions of the Act, shall, as far as may be practicable, be proportionate to the amount of the arrears of land revenue to be recovered and the expenses of attachment and sale. ( 7 ) IN the view that I have taken, it is unnecessary to quash the impugned proclamation of sale. The petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. --- *** --- .