P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this petition, the petitioner Society has challenged the order at Annexure e dated 10. 7. 1991 passed by the Mamlatdar, Taluka Chorasi, District Surat. By the aforesaid order, the Mamlatdar has asked the petitioner Society to pay Rs. 43,823-22 towards the special cess for non-agricultural use of the land under the Land Revenue Code. As per the notice, the demand is for the period upto the year1990-91. The said notice of the Mamlatdar is challenged in this petition at the instance of the petitioner Society. ( 2 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner Ms. Mehta submitted that special cess is demanded by the Mamlatdar for non-agricultural use of the land in question. It is submitted by Mrs. Mehta that at the relevant time, the land in question was forming part of the Municipal Corporation area of the city of Surat, and, therefore, relying upon sections 65 to 68 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, she submitted that it was not open to the revenue authorities to exercise powers under the Land Revenue Code for recovery of the special cess. It is submitted by her that the petitioner is also paying tax to the Municipal Corporation such as education cess and other taxes, and, therefore, the land in question cannot be subjected to the same tax by two different authorities, i. e. , one by the revenue authority under the Bombay Land Revenue Code and the other by the Local authority under the Municipal Corporation Act. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that for the period between 1976-77 to 1984-85, the petitioner was asked to pay Rs. 26,992-80 towards special cess and education cess. The said order was passed by the Mamlatdar on 1. 1. 1986. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Collector, but the Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The order passed by the Deputy Collector was carried in Revision before the Collector, Surat, but the Collector also rejected the Revision and confirmed the order passed by the Mamlatdar. The order passed by the Collector was carried further in Revision before the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department. The said Revision was allowed by the Additional Chief Secretary [appeals] Revenue, by his order dated 29. 4. 1989 whereby the order dated 1. 1. 1986 passed by the Mamlatdar was set aside. The order passed by the Collector was carried further in Revision before the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department. The said Revision was allowed by the Additional Chief Secretary [appeals] Revenue, by his order dated 29. 4. 1989 whereby the order dated 1. 1. 1986 passed by the Mamlatdar was set aside. It is an undisputed fact that the property in question is situated within the jurisdiction of Surat Municipal Corporation. The Secretary came to the conclusion that on the properties coming within the jurisdiction of local bodies, education cess can be levied and recovered only by the local bodies. The Secretary also further observed that if the local authority is not levying or recovering such cess or duties, the revenue authorities may bring the said fact to the notice of the State Government, and after taking prior approval from the State Government, the Revenue Authorities can recover such cess. The Secretary accordingly allowed the Revision Application filed by the petitioner by setting aside the order of the Mamlatdar dated 1. 1. 1986 which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector and the Collector in Revision Application. The aforesaid order of the Secretary [appeals] has become final. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENT to the aforesaid order of the Additional Chief Secretary dated 29. 04. 1989, the Mamlatdar has issued notice dated 10. 7. 1991 asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 43,823-22 towards outstanding dues of special cess and education cess upto the year 1990-91. The aforesaid notice of the Mamlatdar is impugned in this petition by the petitioner Society. ( 5 ) THIS petition is admitted in 1991 and is pending for final hearing since then. The impugned notice of the Mamlatdar was stayed by this Court at the time of admitting this petition. ( 6 ) MRS. Mehta vehemently submitted that once the Secretary has held in his order dated 29. 4. 1989 at Annexure d that the land in question of the petitioner cannot be subjected to the payment of special cess and education cess at the hands of the revenue authorities, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction over the aforesaid property. She submitted that it is not open to the Mamlatdar to issue such notice asking the petitioner to pay the amount for the period including the period which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Secretary. She submitted that it is not open to the Mamlatdar to issue such notice asking the petitioner to pay the amount for the period including the period which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Secretary. It is submitted by her that once the order of the Secretary has become final, it was highly improper on the part of the Mamlatdar to again issue notice for recovery of the amount for the period between 1976 to 1991. ( 7 ) THIS Court has tried to ascertain the period for which the impugned notice dated 10. 7. 1991 was issued by the Mamlatdar. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dave submitted that reading the notice, it appears that the demand is for the period upto 1991. Thus it appears that the demand is also made for the period which was the subject matter before the Secretary and under the circumstances, the Mamlatdar is absolutely unjustified in ignoring the order of the Secretary by asking the petitioner to pay the amount for the earlier period for which the Secretary has already allowed the Revision of the present petitioner. The Secretary has clearly held that the Revenue authorities are not entitled to recover any amount for the property in question under the Land Revenue Code. The Mamlatdar being a subordinate Revenue Officer, was bound to obey the order of the Secretary. The Secretary has in clear terms held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction over the land in question, and accordingly the Revision of the petitioner was allowed by the Secretary. There is nothing on the record to show that thereafter the Mamlatdar has obtained any specific order from the Government in this behalf prior to issuing the impugned notice. Even reading the notice of the Mamlatdar it does not say that any prior permission of the State Government is obtained for the purpose of initiating recovery proceedings. The Mamlatdar was bound to obey the order of the Secretary. This Court is not required to express any opinion about the merits of the order of the Secretary as that order is not under challenge before this Court. However, when the order of the Secretary has become final, the Mamlatdar is bound to give effect to the said order. The Mamlatdar was bound to obey the order of the Secretary. This Court is not required to express any opinion about the merits of the order of the Secretary as that order is not under challenge before this Court. However, when the order of the Secretary has become final, the Mamlatdar is bound to give effect to the said order. Eventhough the petition is pending since 1991, no reply is filed by the Government pointing out that inspite of the order of the Secretary, the Mamlatdar was entitled to initiate recovery proceedings for recovery of special cess for using the land for non-agricultural purpose. As pointed out earlier, it is clear that the amount demanded in the impugned notice is pertaining to the period from 1976 to 1991 whereas the order of the Secretary in terms deal with the period between 1976 and 1984-85, which is set aside by the Secretary. Since the aforesaid action of the Mamlatdar is contrary to the order passed by the Secretary at Annexure d dated 29. 4. 1989, this petition is required to be allowed on the aforesaid ground. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the question whether the Mamlatdar was entitled to proceed further after taking appropriate prior permission from the State Government, as observed by the Secretary in his order dated 29. 4. 1989 or whether the land can be subjected to cess under the Land Revenue Code and Corporation Act. If there is any circular or resolution in this behalf, it is for the Mamlatdar to act in accordance with law. So far as this petition is concerned, it is required to be allowed in view of what is stated hereinabove as the notice issued by the Mamlatdar is contrary to the order passed by the Secretary. It was not open to the Mamlatdar to ignore the order of the higher officer and he ought not to have issued the impugned notice in such a casual manner. A subordinate officer is bound to accept the judgment of the higher officer. This Court has also not expressed any opinion as to whether it is permissible to the revenue authorities to levy special cess and education cess on the land in question for the period subsequent to the order passed by the Secretary. A subordinate officer is bound to accept the judgment of the higher officer. This Court has also not expressed any opinion as to whether it is permissible to the revenue authorities to levy special cess and education cess on the land in question for the period subsequent to the order passed by the Secretary. However, it is clarified that it will be open to the Mamlatdar to act in accordance with law in the matter of recovery of special cess as per the directions given by the Secretary in his order dated 29. 4. 1989. ( 8 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of recovery at Annexure e is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. .