1. The only question in these appeals is whether the sales of the respective ryots holdings in pursuance of notices under B. 112, Estates Land Act at which the appellant became the purchaser were valid or liable to be set aside as not having complied with the requirements of that Act for the proper conduct of sales. The sales were attacked on various grounds which are not now material because the only ground on which the learned Judge below has declared against the sales is that the provisions of Sections 116 and 117, Estates Land Act have not been complied with. What happened was that after the landholder had issued the notice and the fact was intimated to him, no suits having been instituted according to Section 114, the Deputy Collector issued proclamations of sale on 12th February 1927. These were served on the ryots on 24th February 1927. No officer to conduct the sale had been till then appointed by the Deputy Collector but on 11th March 1927 a sale warrant was issued to an Amin directing him to affix the enclosed proclamation in some conspicuous place and also to publish it by beat of drum in the village. It is to be presumed that the Amin did so, but when, it does not appear and eventually the sale was held by the Amin on 9th April 1927. The question is whether the above sale satisfies the requirements of Sections 116 and 117. The lower appellate Court has held, I think rightly, that according to those sections it is not the duty of the Collector to issue the proclamation of sale but he has in the first instance to appoint the officer to conduct the sale. It is the duty of the latter officer to fix a date for the sale and cause it to be proclaimed by beat of drum in the village in which the holding is situated and in fixing the date of sale not less than 30 days shall be allowed from the date on which the aforesaid proclamation is made. In the procedure which actually was followed in these cases no officer to conduct the sale was appointed at all until 11th March 1927, But even before that date the Deputy Collector himself had issued the proclamation of sale no doubt fixing the date for the sale. This he was incompetent to do because according to the two sections it is the officer who conducts the sale or the selling officer as ha is called m Section 117, that has to fix the date of sale and issue the proclamation accordingly; and secondly it is provided that 30 days at least shall expire from the date on which the aforesaid proclamation is made, i.e., the proclamation by the selling officer. Obviously in this case 30 days did not elapse because there was less than 30 days between the date of appointment of the Amin and the date of the sale. On both these points the sale was affected by material irregularity which deprived the sale of all validity. The two appeals are dismissed with costs.