Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised several arguments but in my opinion the petition succeeds on the first ground i.e. the Board of Revenue has decided the second appeal without formulating substantial question of law. I need not to go in other arguments. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Ravi Construction Company v. Somvanshi Arya Kshatriya Samaj and others, 2006 (46) AIC 46 (SC) wherein the Apex Court, relying upon the decision in the case of Gian Dass v. Gram Panchayat, Village Sunner Kalan and others, 2006 (45) AIC 456 (SC) and other cases, have held that if the second appeal is decided by High Court under section 100 without formulating substantial question of law in that event the order of the High Court deserves to be set aside. There is a reported decision in the case of Ram Prakash and another v. Ram Saran and others, 2006 (100) RD 742 wherein a learned Single Judge, interpreting the provision of section 341 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, had set aside the order of Board of Revenue on the ground that : "it therefore applies to the second appeals in the Board of Revenue. Substantial questions of law, therefore, were required to be framed by the Board of Revenue, which it has not done. On this ground itself the order of the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside."
(3.) The Apex Court in the case of Gian Dass, referred to above, have explained the provisions of section 100 and has held that decision of second appeal without framing substantial question of law is clearly contrary to the mandate of section 100.;