Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenges the steps taken by the 1st respondent, under S.7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (the 'State Act') pursuant to a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dakshina Karnataka, Mangalore, Karnataka State. The certificate was issued under S.3 (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (the 'Central Act') It is not disputed that the 1st respondent is a Collector within the meaning of S 2 (c) of the State Act. The challenge is against the steps taken by the Tahsildar for recovery of the amount by attachment and sale of movable property. The petitioner contends that in respect of a certificate issued under the Central Act, steps cannot be taken under S.7 of the State Act, for such steps for attachment and sale of movable property are not contemplated under the Central Act. The argument is that when the Central Act does not provide for a particular remedy, but such remedy is available under the State Act, the latter is not applicable for enforcement of a certificate issued under the Central Act. This argument has no substance. 2. S.3 (3) of the Central Act provides: "The Collector of the other district shall, on receiving the certificate, proceed to recover the amount stated therein as if it were an arrear of land-revenue which had accrued in bis own district." This provision read with S.7 of the Central Act makes the position clear. The latter provision reads: "7. Saving of local laws relating to revenue. - Nothing in the foregoing sections shall be construed (a) to impair any security provided by, or affect the provisions of, any other enactment for the time being in force for the recovery of land-revenue or of sums recoverable as land-revenue, or (b) The amount is thus sought to be recovered by the Collector as if it was an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his own district. This means that, although the money has become due on a certificate issued under the Central Act, the collection of the same is in accordance with the machinery provided under the State Act. One of the means of enforcement of payment of the amount by the defaulter as provided under the State Act is by attachment and sale of movables. 3. Counsel for the petitioner refers to The Tahsildar, Alwaye v. Antony (1977 KLT. One of the means of enforcement of payment of the amount by the defaulter as provided under the State Act is by attachment and sale of movables. 3. Counsel for the petitioner refers to The Tahsildar, Alwaye v. Antony (1977 KLT. 26) and submits that, where the provisions of the Central Act are at variance with, and less onerous than, those of the State Act. the former ought to be preferred to the latter. Where there is inconsistency between the two enactments the provisions of the Central Act must prevail. This is indeed true. But such inconsistency can arise only where it is not possible to obey the State Act without disobeying the Central Act Where the Central Act provides for attachment and sale of movable property by a procedure which is less onerous than that laid down in the State Act. then of course the Central Act must prevail But where the Central Act is silent as regards the movable properties and the State Act provides for attachment and sale of such properties, the certified amount can be recovered as if it were arrears of land revenue under the State Act by recourse to the machinery and the power provided under the State Act. In the present case, the Central Act is silent as regards movables. That Act is therefore not available for recovery of the amount by means of attachment of movables. But the State Act provides for such attachment and sale. It was that remedy that was resorted to by the competent officer. In the circumstances the challenge against the steps for recovery taken by the Tahsildar, the 1st respondent, fails. The Original Petition is dismissed No costs.