Islam, C.J.- In these Rules a common question falls for decision. The question is, whether the provision of section 68 (2) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is mandatory as contended by counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Bakijai proceedings impugned in the Rules arises out of agricultural income-tax. Civil Rule No. 478 of 1972 relates to the assessment year 1962-63. Civil Rule No. 479 of 1972 to the assessment year 1963-64 and Civil Rule No. 480 of 1972 to the assessment year 1964-65. It will be sufficient if we refer to the facts of Civil Rule No. 475/72. 3. The material facts are that the petitioner company owns a tea estate manufacturing and selling tea within the State of Assam. It is assessed to agricultural income tax under the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 (hereinafter 'the Act'). For the assessment year 1962-63 the Agricultural Income-tax Officer (Respondent No. 1) assessed (he petitioner under Section 20(4) of the Act at Rs. 70,919/- of agricultural income-tax. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal and paid Rs. 51,000/- of the assessed tax. The respondent No. 1 issued a Certificate to the Collector of Dibrugarh (Respondent No. 3) for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 61,919/-for (hs assessment year 1962-63. The Bakijai Officer, Dibrugarh (Respondent No. 2), on receipt of the certificate, initiated proceedings for the recovery of the said amount. In pursuance of the said proceedings the Nazir attached movable properties of the petitioner worth Rs. 1,65,000/-. The attachment was done without any notice as required under Section 68(2) of the Regulation. 4. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the attachment is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is in violation of the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Regulation, which he submits, is mandatory and non-com­pliance thereof vitiates the attachment. In reply Mr. B.C. Baruah, learned Advocate General, Assam submits that the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Regulation is directory and its non-compliance is a mere irregu­larity and does not vitiate the attachment. He submits that immediately the arrear is paid by the assessee-petitioner the movables seized will be released. The undisputed case is that the movables seized have net been sold. 5. He submits that immediately the arrear is paid by the assessee-petitioner the movables seized will be released. The undisputed case is that the movables seized have net been sold. 5. The admitted position is that the arrear of the agricultural income tax may be realised as an arrear of land revenue under the Regulation. The mode of recovery of arrear of land reve­nue has been prescribed in chapter V of the Regulation. Section 68 of the Regulation provides: (relevant portion only). "68. (1) * * * (2) If the arrear is not in respect of a permanently settled estate, the prescribed officer may in his discre­tion, before employing any of the processes for enfor­cing payment prescribed by this Chapter, issue a notice of demand, calling on the defaulter to pay the amount within a time specified ; Provided that, in such classes of cases, not being cases in which an arrear has accrued in respect of a perman­ently settled estate, as the State Government may direct in this behalf, the prescribed officer shall not employ any such process for enforcing payment as aforesaid, until he has issued a notice of demand and the defaul­ter has failed to pay the arrear within the time speci­fied in such notice''. The petitioner's submission is that the issue of a notice of demand as required by the proviso is mandatory and unless the notice is issued, the Collector does not have the jurisdic­tion to seize the property. The 'process for enforcing pay­ment', in my opinion, involes two stages-firstly the attachment of the property, and secondly its sale, if the arrear is not paid meanwhile. The purpose of employing the 'process for enforcing payment' is to realise the arrear of land revenue. Mere seizure does not serve the purpose of the realising the arrear of land revenue. The arrear can be realised only by sale of the pro­perty seized. The procedure of sale of movable properties has been prescribed under section 69 of the Regulation. The pur­pose of seizure is sale and the purpose of sale, as stated above, is to recover the money. In certain cases is possible that the arrear may be comparatively smaller than the values of the property attached and intended to be sold. The procedure of sale of movable properties has been prescribed under section 69 of the Regulation. The pur­pose of seizure is sale and the purpose of sale, as stated above, is to recover the money. In certain cases is possible that the arrear may be comparatively smaller than the values of the property attached and intended to be sold. If the pro­perty of such higher value is seized and sold the defaulter will suffer, in that case, if the knows that his property, is going to be sold, he would, in all probability, pay up the arrear. It, therefore, stands to reason that a sale and attachment are preceded by a notice of demand. Mere attachment, however, does not harm the defaulter, but the sale may. Therefore, in my opinion, mere attachment without a prior notice is a mere irregularity and will not vitiate the attachment itself. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissi­oner had total lack of jurisdiction in directing the attachment of the property. In the result I hold that the proviso to sub­section (2) of Section 68 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation is directory and not mandatory and its non-com­pliance does not vitiate the attachment. The impugned attachment therefore has not been vitiated. 6. In support of his contention the petitioner cited be­fore us a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wazir Chand and another vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 415 . In my opinion this case is of no assistance to the petitioner. la that case certain goods in possession of the appellant were seized by Police in India at the instance of Policy of Jammu and Kashmir and "the seizure was not under any authority of law, inasmuch as they were not under orders of any magistrate, nor were they under any of the Sections 51, 95, 98 and 165 of the Cr. P.C. since no report of any offence committed by the petitioner was made to the police in India and the Indian Police were not authorized to make any investigation." In the Supreme Court Case (supra) there was total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Indian Police to seize the property, but in the case in hand the Deputy Commissioner had the requisite power to seize the property under Section 68 of the Regulation; what lacked was a prior notice. 7. In the result I hold that these applications have no merit and are dismissed. The orders of stay earlier granted are vacated. We are told that the petitioners have not yet paid up the arrears in view of the stay order granted by this Court on 15.5.1972. The petitioners have successfully held up the pay­ment of the arrears. The petitioners, therefore are liable to pay costs. The petitioners shall pay a consolidated cost of Rs. 300/- to the respondents.