Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of suit filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (In short 'the Act') for declaration of their rights over the land in dispute. The aforesaid suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24th January, 1983. The defendant Babu, contesting respondent in this petition preferred an appeal against the order dated 24th January, 1983 passed by the Trial Court being appeal No. 441 of 1984-85 before die Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The appellate authority, namely the Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 22nd January, 1985. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22nd January, 1985 passed by tire first appellate authority, the petitioners preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue, which has been registered as second appeal No. 33 of 1984-85. The said second appeal was dismissed, as abated for non-substitution of the heirs of the deceased Babu within limitation by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 31st March, 1993. The petitioners preferred writ petition before this Court being civil misc. writ petition No. 14966 of 1993 (Ram Lakhan and others v. Board of Revenue) which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 2003 and the matter was remanded back to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh. After remand, the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 18th January, 2006 dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2006, the petitioners preferred review application being review application No. 39 of 2005-06, which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 22nd March, 2006, thus this writ petition.
(2.) Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has erred in law' in deciding the second appeal vide its order dated 18th January, 2006 and further rejecting the petitioners' review application vide order dated 22nd March, 2006. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a second appeal lies against the judgment and order of lower appellate Court in view of the provisions of section 331 of the Act which is reproduced below: "331 (4) that a second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid".;