1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari, quashing the order of the District Judge, Bhind, requiring the Collector of Bhind to recover the costs of a case as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act, (Act No. 1 of 1890).
2. The petitioner was a High Court pleader of the former Kurwai State. On the creation of Madhya Bharat, in which Kurwai State was merged, the petitioner applied to the High Court for the grant of a license to practice in the Courts of the Madhya Bharat. His petition was rejected by the High Court, and, against that order when the petitioner went in appeal to the Supreme Court, his appeal was dismissed with costs by the Supreme Court, as well. After the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the Senior Deputy Registrar of the Madhya Bharat High Court sent a (requisition?) to the District Judge, Bhind, to arrange for the recovery of the costs, enclosing a copy of the Bill of costs of the Supreme Court as certified by the Taxing Officer.
On receipt of this, the District Judge wrote to the Collector, Bhind, for the recovery of the above costs amounting to Rs. 989/14/- as public demand under the Revenue Recovery Act. The Collector in his turn directed the Tehsildar, Bhind, to recover the aforesaid costs. The petitioner appeared before the District Judge and objected to the recovery being made under the Revenue Recovery Act of 1890. But the District Judge overruled the objection and held that the costs could be recovered under the Act. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed thiswrit and he prays that the order of the District Judge, Bhind, is without jurisdiction and must be quashed.
3. The learned Government Advocate has very rightly conceded that the District Judge, Bhind, was in error in directing the Collector to recover the costs as a public demand. Section 3 of the Recovery Act (Act No. 1 of 1890) deals with public demands recoverable by the Collector from a defaulter. It empowers the Collector to recover the arrears of land revenue or a sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue only. The costs in a case is neither an arrear of land revenue, nor, is it recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It is, therefore, obvious that the District Judge was manifestly in error in directing the Collector to recover the costs incurred (Sic) (awarded ?) in a suit or a petition as arrears of land revenue or as a sum recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
4. For reasons stated above we quash theorder of the District Judge, Bhind, and direct theCollector, Bhind, not to recover the costs under theRevenue Recovery Act. No order as to costs of thispetition.