JUDGMENT Harish Tandon, J. 1. The affidavit-of-service filed today in Court be kept on record. In spite of service of notice no one appears on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Court in Certificate Case No. 145 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the distress warrant was issued against the petitioner for realization of the interest accrued on amount of compensation. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered a judgment in Claim Case No. 161 of 1995 by which a sum of Rs. 1,05,895/- was directed to be paid on account of compensation for loss of his earning capacity. The petitioner was further directed to deposit the said sum of compensation within two months from the date of the order failing which the simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was directed to be paid on the said quantum of compensation. 3. Although according to petitioner an appeal is preferred against the said judgement but the petitioner could not produce any document from which it could be gathered that the operation of the said judgement has been stayed. 4. In absence of any such order of stay the opposite party No. 1 filed a Certificate Case No. 145 of 2008 before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and who is the Certificate Officer under section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. 5. The point is taken before this Court that section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act provides that the Collector is a competent Authority to initiate a certificate proceeding for recovery of the certificate debt and the Commissioner cannot usurp such power which is not provided in the said Act. 6. On meaningful reading of section 5 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 it is manifest that the Collector is an appropriate Authority for the purpose of recovery of amount as land revenue and such power has not been vested upon the Commissioner. 7. The statutory authorities are bound to act within the statutory boundaries and any act beyond the same would render it a nullity. 8. This Court thus finds that the order passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and is, therefore, set aside. 9. The revisional application is allowed. 10. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis. 8. This Court thus finds that the order passed by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction and is, therefore, set aside. 9. The revisional application is allowed. 10. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis. Application allowed