Aikman, J.:— The Magistrate speaks of the attachment as having been made under section 47 of Act No. VII of 1873. This appears to me to be a mistake, as section 47 refers to the recovery of canal dues by the Collector from lambardars who have been required under that section to collect and pay in canal dues. In this case the persons whose property was attached were not lambardars. In my opinion the appointment of a lambardar does not prevent the Collector from recovering from persons who have actually used canal water the amount due from them, that is, the appointment of a lambardar does not deprive the Collector of the power given him by section 45 of the Act. In the present case the Naib Nazir, who was a public servant, had an order from an Assistant Collector directing him to distrain for certain amount due on account of canal rates. That order may not have been drawn up with the formality with which such an order should be prepared but notwithstanding this I am of opinion that the distraining of the property was made by the lawful authority of a public servant, and it has been found that there was resistance to that distraint. The present case is distinguishable from the cases relied on by the learned officiating Sessions Judge, and the decision of the Magistrate is supported by the ruling to which he refers, viz., Queen-Empress v. Poomalai Udayau (I.L.R, 21 Mad., 296). I therefore decline to interfere, and direct that the record be returned.