Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri H.S.N. Tripathi learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Shariq Ahmad for the respondent No. 2. Sri N.K. Misra has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.
(2.) The main arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Board of Revenue decided the second appeal without framing any substantial question of law for decision. It has been further alleged that under the provision section 100, CPC read with sub-section (4) of section 331 and section 341 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Second appeals can be heard and decided only on substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission. Reliance in support of contention has been placed on the following judgments of the Hon' ble Apex Court, Kshitesh Chandra Purakrit v. Santosh Kumar Purakrit and another, 1997 (5) SCC 438; Sheel Chandra v. Prakash Chandra, 1998 (89) RD 623 (SC); B. Basavraj v. M. Sadique Ali., 2000 (Suppl.) RD 188.
(3.) I have gone through the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue. The same does not disclose that any substantial question of law or questions of law were raised and formulated by the Court. It is well settled by the pronouncements of the Apex Court that second appeal can only be heard and decided on substantial question of law as provided by section 100 of CPC. The approach of the Board of Revenue is contrary to the mandatory provision of section 100, CPC.;