M/S Amar Flour Mills Private Ltd. vs Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board And Ors
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
Reserved on : 26.08.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment
M/S AMAR FLOUR MILLS PRIVATE LTD
....Appellant(s)
Versus
HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD
AND ORS
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY
Present: Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate,
Mr. Daanish Mahajan, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Gautam Kaile, Deputy A.G. Haryana.
SANJIV BERRY, J.
1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2012 passed
by the learned District Judge, Sirsa, dismissing the appeal preferred against
the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Sirsa, whereby the suit instituted by the appellant seeking
a declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of
₹
the demand of market fee amounting to 83,349.30/- pertaining to the year
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-2-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
1969–70, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a private
limited company carrying on the business of running a flour mill at Sirsa and
is a licensed dealer under the respondent-authorities. The appellant asserted
that the management of the mill had changed in the year 1981 and that the
previous management had not handed over the relevant records to the
present management. It was further pleaded that the present management
had been informed that no amount was outstanding against the mill.
3. The controversy arose when the appellant was called upon to
₹
pay an amount of 83,349.30/-, stated to be outstanding towards market fee
for the year 1969–70, and the same was sought to be recovered as arrears of
land revenue. The appellant questioned the legality of the demand, inter alia ,
on the grounds that the recovery was belated, and the amount claimed
included interest which was not legally recoverable, and that the appellant
had not been afforded an opportunity to examine the relevant record before
the recovery proceedings were initiated.
4. The respondents contested the suit, asserting that the demand
pertained to statutory market fee and that the recovery had remained the
subject matter of CWP No.2193 of 1970, which was dismissed by this Court
on 31.07.1981. It was further pleaded that the appellant-company continued
to be the same legal entity notwithstanding changes in its management and
that the amount outstanding against it was recoverable in accordance with
law. The respondents also questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and
relied upon the statutory remedy available under the applicable enactment.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-3-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
Court framed issues concerning the appellant's entitlement to the declaration
and injunction sought, the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of
the Civil Court. Upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the
learned trial Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in view of
Section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the appellant had
not availed itself of the alternative statutory remedy. Consequently, the suit
was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010.
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff preferred
appeal wherein the learned Appellate Court upheld the conclusion that the
Civil Court's jurisdiction stood excluded in the facts and circumstances of
the case. It was, however, noticed that the appellant had deposited amounts
of Rs.27,000/- and Rs.81,483/- on 17.01.2003 and 07.02.2006, respectively.
The appeal was accordingly disposed of vide impugned judgment and decree
dated 18.04.2012 with directions that any further recovery, if due, would be
governed by law and could not be effected as arrears of land revenue in the
absence of the requisite notice.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed the present
appeal, which on notice was contested by the respondents.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgments of
the Courts below, contending that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could
not have been excluded where the impugned demand was alleged to be
contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further
contended that the appellant was not liable to discharge the alleged liability
of the previous management and that the demand of interest, which
substantially enhanced the original amount, was not supported by the
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-4-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
applicable statutory provisions. Learned counsel has also relied upon the
payments made during the pendency of the suit and submitted that the
appellant is entitled to appropriate relief in respect of any excess amount
recovered.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the learned
Courts below failed to appreciate the fact that with the passage of time the
management of the plaintiff had changed and the liability cannot be affixed
on the present management for the amount, if any, payable during the tenure
of management at the relevant time. He as such prayed for acceptance of the
appeal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
assailed these arguments by submitting that there is no merit in the instant
appeal as the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on
every issue. He pointed out that even the appellant-plaintiff, in an earlier
round of litigation by filing CWP No. 2193 of 1970 before the High Court
had already assailed the leavy of amount unsuccessfully, as the writ petition
was ultimately dismissed on 31.07.1981. Thus, having already availed a
remedy in respect of the same cause of action, no surviving cause of action
was available to the plaintiff. He also highlighted that the jurisdiction of
Civil court was barred under the provision of The Punjab Land Revenue Act,
1887 and the same has been consistently held by the learned Courts below.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also have gone
through the judgments of learned Courts below with their assistance.
12. After considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, it transpires that the
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-5-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
controversy which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
stood excluded by the applicable statutory provisions and whether any
substantial question of law arises warranting interference with the findings
recorded by the courts below.
13. The plaintiff by filing the suit for declaration had sought to
nullify the market fee. In this regard both the Courts below by relying upon
the provisions contained in Section 158 (2) (xiv) of The Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 have concluded that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
For the sake of convenience a glace at the relevant provision contained
under Section 158 (2) (xiv) of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is as
under:-
“158. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters
within the jurisdiction of Revenue- officers.- Except as
otherwise provided by this Act-
(1) xxx xxx xxx.
(2) A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any
of the following matters, namely:-
xxx xxx xxx
(xiv) any claim connected with, or arising out of,
the collection by the Government, or the
enforcement by the Government of any process for
recovery of lan-revenue, or any sum recoverable as
an arrear of land-revenue;.
xxx xxx xxx”
14. In the present case the dispute pertains to the process initiated
by the Government for enforcement in the recovery of the land revenue or in
other words some recoverable as arrears of land revenue therefore, Section
158 (2) (xiv) of The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 has specific
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-6-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case which
excludes the jurisdiction of civil Court. The learned Court below have
rightly applied the principle of ousting the jurisdiction of civil Court and
this aspect could not be controverted by learned counsel for the appellant.
15. Furthermore, it is apt to mention here that Hon’ble Supreme
Courts Seven Judge Bench in Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay , AIR
1965 SC 1942 , held as under:-
“ The question about the exclusion of the civil courts either
expressly or by necessary implication must be considered, in
every case, in the light of the words used in the statutory
provision on which the plea is rested, the scheme of the relevant
provisions, their object and their purpose. Whenever a plea is
raised before a civil court that its jurisdiction is excluded either
expressly or by necessary implication to entertain claims of a
civil nature, the court naturally feels inclined to consider
whether the remedy afforded by an alternative provision
prescribed by a special statute is sufficient or adequate. Where
the exclusion of the civil court’s jurisdiction is expressly
provided for, the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in
question and the adequacy of the sufficiency of remedies
provided for by it may be relevant, it cannot, however, be
decisive. But when exclusion is pleaded as a matter of
necessary implication, such considerations would be very
important, and, in conceivable circumstances, might even
become decisive. If a statute creates a special right or a liability
and provides for the determination of the right and liability to
be dealt with by tribunals specially constituted in that behalf,
and it further lays down that all question about the said right
and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted.
It is pertinent to enquire whether remedies normally associated
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-7-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or
not.”
16. It has further been pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellant that, during pendency of litigation, the plaintiff had already
deposited the amount. However, he could not point out whether the said
amount was deposited under protest or under order from any competent
Court during pendency of the litigation. Moreover, the perusal of record
reveals that on the same cause of action the plaintiff had already filed CWP
No. 2193 of 1970 in this regard on the same cause of action whereby the
₹
demand of 27000/- was raised by the defendant and the same stood
dismissed vide order dated 31.07.1981. It is rightly been observed by learned
First Appellate Court that dismissal of writ petition on same cause of action
leads to the inference that the demand so raised by defendant was legal and
valid and therefore, the plaintiff cannot reagitate the matter by challenging
the same demand by filing the suit for declaration being impliedly hit by the
principle of constructive res judicata .
17. Further as stated by learned counsel for the appellant during
course of the proceedings the plaintiff had already deposited the amount in
question with the defendants and on the same cause of action the CWP No.
2193-1970, filed by the plaintiff already stood dismissed, therefore no cause
of action survives at all in favour of the appellant-plaintiff
18. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the
appellant on the fact that there had been a change in the management of the
plaintiff, thereby extinguishing t he liability for the existing management.
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
-8-
RSA-4133-2012 (O&M)
However, this Court does not find any merit therein, because plaintiff
happens to be a private limited concerned qua which the demand of market
fee was raised. The demand was raised qua the company itself and even if
there had been a change in the management in 1981, the same by itself will
not be sufficient to extinguish such demand qua the present management
when the constitution of the private limited company remains the same.
19. From the perusal of record, it transpires that both the Courts
below have minutely considered and appreciated the record in arriving at the
conclusion that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and during course of
arguments no infirmity or illegality therein could be pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellant so as to call for any interference in the finding
arrived at by the Courts below.
20. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
Dated: 04.11.2026
Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
GYAN CHAND
2026.11.04 16:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document