Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Yashwant Varma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. The amendment application is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the writ petition during the course of the day.

3. In substance, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2014 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer in revision No. 16/27 of 2013-14 (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State and others) by which the petitioner’s application, seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector in case Nos. 186/410 of 2013, 411 of 2013, 433 of 2013 and 256 of 2013 (Report Lekhpal v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.), has been rejected. vide order dated 16.12.2013, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short ‘the Act’) has been allowed ex parte without there being any version of the petitioner. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed revision which has been numbered as revision No. 16/27 of 2013-14 (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State and others). In the aforesaid revision, the petitioner has filed an application praying the stay of the operation of the order dated 16.12.2013 by which the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner and a damages to the tune of Rs. 1,24,590/- has been imposed. The stay application has been rejected holding it to be not maintainable as there is no provision under the Act to pass an interim protection.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the view taken by the Assistant Collector is unsustainable in the eye of law as even if it is assumed that under the Act, there is no provision for moving a stay application, the provisions of Section 341 of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable in the proceedings initiated under the Act. Otherwise also, if the statutory remedy against an order of eviction and imposition of damages has been provided under the Act, in that eventuality, the Court has inherent power to stay the execution of the order against which revision or appeal has been filed. Otherwise, filing of revision/appeal would be futile exercise. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd., (1982 (3) SCC 484) as well as of this Court in Ramdhani Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2008 Allahabad 142) and Smt. Lalti and others v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (AWC 1992 (3) 1480 All.).

5. Learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the gaon sabha have contended that the petitioner has made encroachment over the land in dispute which is recorded in the revenue record as Chak Marg, Nali and Bhita, which is of the property of gaon sabha and in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not appear and file its objection, therefore, no infirmity can be attached with the impugned order dated 16.12.2013. So far as the order dated 31.1.2014 is concerned, in this regard, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no provision under the Act under which an application seeking interim protection can be filed in such cases, therefore, the view taken by the Chief Revenue Officer, rejecting the petitioner’s stay application, cannot be faulted with. So far as quashing of recovery citation is concerned, in this regard, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this Court has no jurisdiction to quash the recovery citation and for that, there is a different Bench, which can interfere with such matters.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ p