D. K. SETH, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-1-1995 passed by Sri P. M. Singh, District Judge, Ghazipur, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995 arising out of the order, dated 8-3- 1995, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mohammadabad district Ghazipur in Original Suit No. 289 of 1993. A sum of Rs. 20548. 10 paise was sought to be realised under Section 20 of The U. P. Krishi Utapadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred as to Adhiniyam), against the petitioner, which is recoverable as land revenue. In tie said Original Suit No. 289 of 1993 the petitioner had prayed for an injunction restraining the Mandi Samiti from recovering the said amount from him on the ground that the name of his father was wrongly printed in the first notice and in the second notice the name of the petitioners father was omitted. He further claims that he is not liable to pay any amount inas much as by reason of Sections 9, 10 and 17 of the Adhiniyam he cannot be held liable to pay any amount to the Mandi Samiti. In connection with the said suit the plaintiff filed an application for injunction, which was refused by an order, dated 8-3 1995 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Divi sion) Mohammadabad. 2. Against the order, dated 8-3-1995 the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1995, which was also dismissed by an order, dated 27-91-995 passed by the District Judge, Ghazipur. 3. Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that both the courts below have overlooked the case made out by the plaintiff that he is not the person from whom recovery is sought to be made and that there is no liability so far as the plaintiff is concerned and, therefore, the said order should be set aside. He further contends that there is no provision for recovering the said amount as land revenue. 4. Sri S. P. Gautam alongwith Sri Mandhyan, learned counsel ap pearing on behalf of respondents Mandi Samiti contend that no suit is maintainable against recovery of any sum recoverable as arrears of laud revenue in view of Section 330 of U. P. Zamiudari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 5. 4. Sri S. P. Gautam alongwith Sri Mandhyan, learned counsel ap pearing on behalf of respondents Mandi Samiti contend that no suit is maintainable against recovery of any sum recoverable as arrears of laud revenue in view of Section 330 of U. P. Zamiudari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 5. Section 17 of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964tmis the charging section, by which Mandi Samiti may levy and collect market fee as provided under clause (iii) (b) of Section 17 of the Act on transaction of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area. Section 20 of the said Adhiniyam provides as under : "20. Recovery of sums due to committee as arrears of land revenue and power to write off irrecoverable dues.- (I) Any amount due to the prescribed period, may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. (2) A Committee may write-off any amount due to it, if it is certi fied by the Collector to be irrecoverable : Provided that no amount exceeding Rs. 200 shall be written-off without the prior approval of the Director. " Therefore any amount payable to the Mandi Samiti is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The arrears of land revenue are recoverable under Section 279 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Ela borate procedure has been laid down in the said Act and the rules framed thereunder as to how the land revenue are to be collected. 6. Section 287-A of the said Act provides as under : "287-A. Payment under protest and suit for recovery.- (1) Whenever proceedings are taken under this Chapter against any person for the recovery of any arrears of land revenue or for the recovery any sum of money recoverable as (arrears of land revenue) he may pay the amount claimed under protest to the officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment the proceedings, shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceed ings were taken may sue the State Government in the Civil Court for the amount so paid, and in such suit the plaintiff may, notwithstanding any contained in Section 278 give evidence of the amount, if any, which he alleged to be due from him. (2) No protest under this section shall enable the person making the same to sue in the Civil Court, unless it is made at the time of payment in writing and signed by such person or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf. " 7. Therefore, in view of Section 287-A of the Act if a person wants to deny his liability that he is not liable to pay any amount sought to be recovered from him through the said process or he denies the said liability with regard to the land revenue sought to be recoverable, he may file suit on the conditions, as laid down in Section 287-A, namely, after depositing the amount sought to be recovered under protest and producing receipt of such payment. The suit challenging the said recovery is confined within the ambit as laid down in Section 287-A except that exception against recovery of any sum recoverable as land revsnue are barred under Section 330 of U. P. Zamindari Aboiition and Land Reforms Act which provides as under : "330. Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters.-Save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, no suit or other pro ceeding shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of- (a) any entry in or omission from a Compensation Assessment Roll ; or (b) any order passed under Part I of this Act; or (c) the assessment or collection of land revenue under Chap ter X or the recovery of any sum of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue. " 8. Therefore the suit is barred in view of clause (c) of Section 330 of the Act against the recovery of sum as arrears of land revenue subject to Section 287-A, which lays down the limited scope for such suit. Section 34 of the Adhiniyam runs as under : "34. Suit against the committee.- (1) No suit shall be instituted against any committee, its Chairman, Vice-Chairman or any member, office or servant thereof, for anything done or purport ed to be done, in its or his official capacity until the expiration of two months from the date of service of a notice in writing, stating the cause of action the name and place of abode of the plaintiff and the relief claimed. (2) The notice under sub-section (1) shall- (i) where it is a notice to the committee, be delivered at its office on any working day or handed to his Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Secretary or shall be sent by registered post ; and (ii) in every other case, be delivered to the person concerned or sent by registered post. (3) No suit referred to in sub-section (l)"shall, unless it is a suit for recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of title thereto, be instituted otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action. 9. Section 34 of the Act permits filing of the suit against the Mandi Simiti on the conditions laid down therein by serving ;notice upon the Samiti except in cases of injunction where object would be defeated by giving such notice. 10. So far as the question of injunction prohibiting the Mandi Samiti from recovering the said amount as arrears of land revenue cannot be per mitted because of the reason that the damage or injury that might be suffer ed by the plaintiff petitioner, can be quantified in terms of money. The injury being capable of quantified is not subject-matter of injunction as is provided under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. 11. Therefore it appears that by reason of Section 330 and Sec tion 287-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the provisions of Specific Relief Act no injunction can be had against the recovery of dues payable to the Mandi Samiti under Section 17 of the Act recoverable under Section 20 of the Act sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned lower appellate court, impugned in the present writ petition. As has been held in the case of Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, AIR 1991 All 114 the writ petition against the order of Civil Judge can be maintained only when the same is violative of fundamental principles of law. In the present case it does not appear that any fundamental prin ciple of law has been violated. On that score as well this writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. 12. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .