Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Both these writ petitions arise out of the same order of the Board of Revenue dated 8.11.1994. The petitioners Ashiq Ali and Nasir Ali writ petition No. 1799 of 1995 are the defendants in the, suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act while the respondents 5 to 9 Mangroo and others are plaintiffs in the suit. The petitioners Mangroo and others in writ petition No. 24832 of 1998 are plaintiffs in the suit while respondents 5 and 6 Ashiq Ali and Nasir Ali are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs case was that the five plaintiffs and the two defendants had each an equal share. Thus the plaintiffs have 5/7th share whereas the defendants have 2/7 share. The defendants case is that the plaintiffs together have a half share and the defendants have also half share. The Trial Court held that the parties have half share and passed a preliminary decree accordingly. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which was allowed and the Additional Commissioner held by his order dated 2.5.1984 that each of the parties has 1/7th share and thus the plaintiffs together have a 5/7. Against this order, a Second Appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue by petitioners 1 and 2 of writ petition No. 1799 of 95 being respondents 5 and 6 of writ petition No. 24832 of 1998. The Board of Revenue has partly allowed the appeal and by its order impugned dated 8.11.1994 has determined the shares of the parties. Against the order of the Board of Revenue aforesaid these two writ petitions have been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri A.K. Mishra for the petitioners in writ petition No. 1799 of 95 and the respondents Counsel Sri Shamimuddin Khan in that writ petition and have also heard them in writ petition No. 24832 of 1998. Both these Counsel submit that the order of the Board of Revenue was passed without framing any substantial question of law and is therefore erroneous. There appears to be merit in this contention.
(3.) Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applies to the proceedings under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In view of the amendment of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure substantial questions of law are required to be framed, which has not been done by the Board. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue impugned dated 8.11.1994 are set aside and the Board of Revenue is directed to decide the appeal afresh expeditiously and if possible within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced be fore it. Petition allowed.;