Wanchoo C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari, prohibition or any other appropriate direction or order against the Collector and Tehsildar of Bhilwara.
(2.) THE case of the applicant was that the Collector of Bhilwara issued a notice under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act (No. V) of 1952, along with a copy of certificate for realization of Rs. 1,500/- from the applicant on the requisition of a Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. On the receipt of this notice, the applicant appeared before the Collector, and objected under sec. 8, denying his liability. THEreupon, it is said that the Collector dropped the proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act, and started recovering the same amount under sec. 94 of Quanoon Mal Mewar (Act No. V) of 1947. Consequently the applicant has come to this Court, and his main contention is that the Collector should have proceeded under the Public Demands Recovery Act and followed the procedure provided by sec. 8, sub-sec. (2) of that Act, and that he could not take action under sec. 84 of the Quanoon Mal and we should direct him to proceed under sec. 8 (2) of the Public Demands Recovery Act. This application raises the question of the procedure to be followed where the Collector receives a request from a public officer for realization of certain moneys which have been declared realizable by some law as arrears of land revenue. The Public Demands Recovery Act clearly provides under item 1 of the Schedule read with other provisions of the Act they any money, which is declared by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force to be recoverable or realizable as arrears of revenue or land revenue, may be realized under the Act. Further, section 30 shows that this Act is supplementary to the powers given by any other law for the time being in force for the recovery of any due, debt or demand to which the provisions of this Act are applicable. The Act provides that the Public Officer, who is charged, with the realization of the public demand, may send a requisition to the Collector, vide sec. 3. Then under sec. 4 the Collector signs a certificate, and thereafter proceeds to execute that certificate. Under sec, 13 which provides that the amount due under a certificate may be recovered in one or more of the modes authorised by any law for the time being in force for the recovery of an rarer of land revenue, and the provisions of such law shall apply as if such amount were and rarer of land revenue due from the defaulter. Now the requisition in this case came from the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Under sec. 31 of that Act, the Commissioner has been given the power to recover an rarer of land revenue any amount payable by any person under that Act, and has been declared a public officer for purpose of sec. 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act (No. I) of 1890. Sec. 5 of Act No. I provides that a Public Officer may request a Collector, and the Collector is to recover it as an arrear of land revenue. We are of opinion that where a public officer makes a request to the Collector to realize any sum which is realizable as arrears of land revenue, the Collector can only proceed under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act on the receipt of such request. This request amounts to a requisition under sec. 3 of the Act, and the Collector has then to follow the procedure provided in sec. 4 onwards. This is what Collector did in this case. But when the applicant appeared and objected under sec. 8 the Collector suddenly decided to drop the proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act and began taking action under sec. 84 of the Quanoon Mal Mewar. That section, in our opinion, merely provides for methods of recovery of land revenue strictly so called. It does not authorise the Collector to recover sums other than land revenue strictly so culled. They authority the Collector has got only under the provisions of sec. 13 of the Public Demands Recovery Act. In these circumstances, it was wrong on the part of the Collector to have dropped the proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act. It was his duty, when the objection was made under sec. 8, to proceed further as provided by that very section. The question, now, is whether we should interfere in this particular case. The facts have not been fully set out in the application; but on enquiry from learned counsel of the applicant we find that the facts are these. The Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act for Bhilwara passed an order under sec. 23 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, read with the rules, and awarded a lump sum of Rs. 1500/- as compensation to one Mst. Mani who has not been made a party to this application. That order was appealable under sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act We are told by learned counsel that no appeal was filed against that order which the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act is now executing under sec. 31, and he has requested the Collector to realize the amount under the Public Demands Recovery Ace. It is true that the applicant had objected under sec. 8 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, and had denied his liability Under sec. 8 (2) of the Act, the Collector, after he receives such an objection, has to forward it to the officer who has made the requisition, and that officer determines whether the liability is there or not. In this particular case we fail to understand how the applicant can deny his liability under and order under the Workmen's Compensation Act, though of course he has actually done so. In the circumstances though the Collector was wrong in not forwarding this objection to the officer who had sent him the requisition, we are not prepared to interfere in favour of the applicant whose denial appears to us to be dishonest. We, therefore, dismiss the application; but in view of the circumstances pass no order as to costs. .;