Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by respondents 1 and 2 in O. P. 312 of 1972, the Tahsildar; Alwaye and the Village Officer, Kaladi from the judgment in the original petition issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the appellants from taking proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (hereinafter called the Central Act) or the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for short the Local Act) against the respondent herein the petitioner in the O. P. The respondent approached the court on the allegation that he had come to know through the Taluk Officer, Alwaye that the Tax Recovery Officer at Pollach had communicated to the District Collector of Coimbatore about certain alleged dues from him by way of sales tax to the State of Tamil Nadu and had requested in that communication that the Collector at Coimbatore may be pleas d to authorise the Collector, Ernakulam, within whose jurisdiction admittedly the respondent resides, to realise the alleged sales tax dues. On the Collector, Ernakulam being so required by the Collector, Coimbatore to recover the amounts, he instructed the first appellant, the Tahsildar Alwaye, to recover the amounts and a notice it is said was attempted to be served through the second appellant, the village officer by the first appellant. On the basis that under the Central Act the Collector had 10 authority to delegate his powers unlike in the Local Act which contains a special provision for delegation in S.73, it was urged, on the assumption that this was a case in which the District Collector, Ernakulam, had delegated his powers to the first appellant, that the steps attempted by the first appellant are without the authority of law. The learned judge accepted this contention and further scrutinising a communication said to have been addressed by the District Collector to the first appellant also held that that latter cannot be construed as a delegation for the purpose of S.78 of the Local Act. It was therefore held that the respondents, appellants have no authority to take steps against the respondent herein for the recovery of the tax and the writ of mandamus was therefore issued. 2. It was therefore held that the respondents, appellants have no authority to take steps against the respondent herein for the recovery of the tax and the writ of mandamus was therefore issued. 2. Before we proceed to deal with the questions arising in this appeal it is necessary to clarify that the Tahsildar the first appellant can take steps if at all only in his capacity as Collector by virtue of the provision in S.2(c) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 under which he was appointed by the Government to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Collector under the Local Act. No question of delegation can arise in the matter of the functioning of the 1st appellant. The learned Advocate General who appeared for the appellants made available to us the delegation under S.73. Under that delegation with reference to the power to issue notice under S.7 of the Local Act, it is the Deputy Tahsildar and not the Tahsildar to whom the power has been delegated. 3. The first question to be considered in this appeal is whether the Tahsildar the first appellant is entitled to take steps pursuant to the certificate issued by the District Collector, Coimbatore to the District Collector, Ernakulam. It has not been disputed before us that there has been such a certificate. A certificate can so be issued is clear from S.3 (1) of the Central Act. What could be done by the Collector of the other District receiving such a certificate is provided by sub-section (3) of S.3 of the Central Act and it states that he may "proceed to recover the amount stated therein as if it were an arrear of land-revenue which had accrued in his own district." In regard to arrear of land revenue which had actually accrued in his own district it is not disputed before us that the Collector can require a Tahsildar appointed by the Government by virtue of its powers under S.2 (c) of the Local Act, to realise the amounts by applying the provisions in the Local Act. However counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the definition of the term "Collector" in the Central Act, the Collector in S.3 (3) of the Central Act must be understood as the District Collector of Ernakulam and not the Tahsildar who has become a Collector for the purpose of the Local Act by virtue of the appointment made by the Government. We are unable to accept this submission. A certificate has be forwarded by a District Collector as defined in the Central Act to another District Collector also as defined in the Central Act. But once such a certificate is received by a District Collector of a particular District what he can do is to proceed to recover the amount stated therein as if it were an arrear of land-revenue which had accrued in his own district. We therefore are of the view that the District Collector as defined in the Central Act receiving a certificate under S.3 (1) can exercise all powers which he could have exercised in regard to the collection of amounts that had accrued due in his own district. He could therefore tell the Tahsildar who is also a Collector by virtue of his appointment under S.2 (c) of the Local Act by the Government, to collect the amounts. He can tell any authorised officer to whom the powers of the Collector had been delegated under S.73 to do the same. These steps taken by the District Collector defined in the Central Act are only steps which he can take under the Local Act and the provisions in the Local Act which are only in the nature of any other provisions relating to procedure dealing with the machinery for collection will be available to the District Collector as defined in the Central Act. We see no reason why the amplitude of the manner in which he can proceed to collect should in any manner be limited by insisting that the 'District Collector' under the Central Act alone can take further steps under the Local Act. It can be said that such a procedure was unwarranted by law only if the first respondent is able to show that some rights of his guaranteed under the Central Act or the provisions of any other law have been violated by the particular procedure adopted. It can be said that such a procedure was unwarranted by law only if the first respondent is able to show that some rights of his guaranteed under the Central Act or the provisions of any other law have been violated by the particular procedure adopted. The argument put forward is merely technical and has no substance for it does not really matter whether the Tahsildar issued a notice under S.7 or the District Collector issued a notice under S 7 or a delegate issued a notice under S 73. All that the respondent is entitled to show is that the person who issued notice bad no competence to issue notice under the Local Act. For by virtue of S.3 (3) of the Central Act the machinery provisions of the Local Act will be attracted. The 'District Collector' to whom the certificate was sent we are assuming that such a certificate can be sent only to a District Collector as defined in the Central Act) can take all steps that he could have taken to realise dues that had accrued in his own District. So any officer or authority who can take further steps under the Local Act can take such steps. If there has been no proper delegation by the Collector, no person claiming to be a delegate, can issue a notice under S 7. If the person who issued the notice is not a Collector under the Local Act, that notice will be an invalid one because it will have no authority to back it. A Collector for the purpose of the Local Act will take in a 'District Collector' as well as a Collector appointed under S.2 (c) of the Local Act. Such an appointee will have the same powers as a'District Collector'. As we indicated, it the District Collector had passed on a certificate issued by himself to an officer appointed under S.2 (c) to take further steps under the Local Act there can be no doubt that the officer appointed under S.2 (c) will have the authority to proceed further and take all further steps necessary to realise the dues. As we indicated, it the District Collector had passed on a certificate issued by himself to an officer appointed under S.2 (c) to take further steps under the Local Act there can be no doubt that the officer appointed under S.2 (c) will have the authority to proceed further and take all further steps necessary to realise the dues. If a District Collector can so pass on a certificate issued by himself we conceive that he can as well pass on a certificate received by him from an outside Collector in accordance with the provisions in S.3 (1) of the Central Act to another Collector under the Local Act for taking necessary steps for realisation. No decision has been brought to our notice in support of the submissions made by counsel for the first respondent that it is only a'District Collector' under the Local Act and not a Collector for the purpose of the Local Act who can take action pursuant to a certificate issued under S.3 (1) of the Central Act. 4. The decision relied on in the original petition in Sm. Bulu Rani Seal v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal and others AIR. 1962 Calcutta 499 has no application. That was a case where on the receipt of a certificate by a District Collector, "some one made an endorsement to the effect "start a case and realise the demand". Thereupon, the Certificate Officer of 24-Parganas at Alipore commenced proceedings by issuing a fresh certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act Bengal (Act III of 1913) showing that the certificate holder was the Union of India, and the dues were shown as "R.F.A. Loans for L.A. 2209 due to the Collector of Delhi District" After filing the said certificate, the Certificate Officer issued notice under S.7 of the Bengal Act, which was sought to be served on the opposite party No. 6 on 15 5 53". In these circumstances it was held: "Firstly, a fresh certificate should not have been issued, and secondly, the matter could not be dealt with by the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas who is not the 'Collector' as defined under the Revenue Recovery Act. He could not issue a notice under S 7 of the local Act, and the issuing of such a notice is incompetent and contrary to law. That being so. He could not issue a notice under S 7 of the local Act, and the issuing of such a notice is incompetent and contrary to law. That being so. the entire certificate proceedings have become invalid and must be set aside and/or quashed by an appropriate Writ." This decision referred to an earlier decision in Ram Ranjan Rakshit v. The Chief Administrator. Rehabilitation Finance Administration, New Delhi and others AIR. 1960 Calcutta 4 6 wherein justice Mukharji had observed that "the primary Act that governs realisation of demand as a land revenue is the Revenue Recovery Act of 1890 and what the Public Demands Recovery Act does is to provide only the auxiliary machinery and not the substantive rights such as reopening a conclusive certificate by objections." The learned judge had occasion to refer to the provisions in S 3(2) of the Central Act which provided that the certificate issued under S.3(1) shall "save as otherwise provided by this Act, shall be conclusive proof of the matters therein stated" and had compared that provision with the provision in the Local Act which provided for objections being raised relating to the validity of the certificate. The complaint of the writ petitioner before the High Court was that his objections taken before the officer to whom a certificate was issued under S.3 (1) had not been considered The High Court held that the conclusive nature of the particular certificate issued under S.3 (1) of the Central Act must prevail and the provisions of the Local Act cannot be applied because the provision in the Central Act and the Local Act in this regard dealt with substantive rights. These two decisions are easily distinguishable. 5. We may say before concluding this aspect of the matter that apart from the provision in S.3 (2) of the Central Act there are other provisions in the Central Act which are at variance with those in the Local Act. S.4 of the Central Act for instance gives the remedy to a person against whom a notice had been issued to pay the amount under protest and then file a suit for repayment of the amount or any part thereof. The Local Act gives a right to a suit only to a limited extent. S.4 of the Central Act for instance gives the remedy to a person against whom a notice had been issued to pay the amount under protest and then file a suit for repayment of the amount or any part thereof. The Local Act gives a right to a suit only to a limited extent. We think that when the amounts are to be recovered pursuant to a certificate under S.3 (1) the provisions under S.4 of the Central Act would apply because the section pertains to a substantial right Similarly the provision in the Local Act to object to the certificate will not apply in the case of realisation of amounts pursuant to a certificate under S.3 (1). The Central Act makes provision under S.6 of the above Act for the issue of proclamation prohibiting the transfer of any private alienation of the property or of any interest of the defaulter therein, whether by sale, gift, mortgage or otherwise, made after the issue of the proclamation and before the withdrawal thereof, and has further provided that such transfers shall be void under the Central Act. There provisions alone will apply when pursuant to a certificate under S.3(1) of the Central Act dues are sought to be realised. We have referred to these provisions to point out that there may be substantive rights under the Central Act which will prevail notwithstanding the application of the auxiliary machinery in the Local Act. In such cases the person proceeded against would be entitled to contend that his substantive right under the Central Act cannot be abrogated by the application of the "Local Act. But by the force of S.3 (3) of the Central Act all the auxiliary machinery under the Local Act would be applicable. The procedure under the Local Act, that a ‘District Collector' may use an appointee under S.2 (c) of the Local Act (also a District Collector under the Local Act) for the purpose of collection is only a machinery provision. 6. With great respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned judge in the judgment under appeal that a delegate under S.73 of the Local Act will not be able to take steps to realise dues on a certificate issued under S.3 (1) of the Central Act. 6. With great respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned judge in the judgment under appeal that a delegate under S.73 of the Local Act will not be able to take steps to realise dues on a certificate issued under S.3 (1) of the Central Act. In any view of the matter the question does not arise since the action was taken by the first appellant, the Tahsildar who is not the delegate under S.73 of the Local Act but a person appointed under S.2 (c) of that Act who has got all the powers of the Collector under the Local Act. 7. In the light of what we have stated the notice issued under S.7 by the first appellant cannot be challenged by the first respondent. We set aside the judgment under appeal, allow this appeal and dismiss the original petition. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Allowed.