Heard Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.A. Jamal, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the record.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.6.1992 ( Annexure no.4) passed by opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 4.6.1992 ( Annexure no.4) passed by opposite party no. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad in Second Appeal No. 5(Z) of 1989-90 is in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 331 sub-clause (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

As per the said provision, it is mandatory on the part of the Board to formulate the substantial question of law while deciding the second appeal, the said exercise has not been done in the present case, as such the impugned order in question is contrary to law, liable to be set aside.

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

For deeper and better understanding of the aforesaid controversy involved In the present case, it would be expedient to reproduce sub-section (4) of Section 331 and Section 341 of U. P. Z. A. & L.R