JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order of the Board of Revenue dated 7-4-1956. The facts are these: 2. On 8-10-1954, the second Respondent filed an application against the Petitioner u/s 232 of the UPZA and LR Act for restoration of possession of certain land of which he claimed to be the Adhivasi. His application was allowed by the trial court and an appeal by the Petitioner to the Addl. Commr. was dismissed. The Petitioner then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, but the Board by its order of 7-4-1956, summarily dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was incompetent. 3. It is clear, therefore, and it has not been disputed before us, that Section 331 at that time made no provision for a second appeal to the Board of Revenue in the case of applications u/s 232 of the Act. The law, it may be observed, has in this respect been altered by the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act XVIII of 1956) which came into force on 28th May of this year and which has substituted a new Sch. II for the earlier schedule. Under serial No. 35 of the new schedule a second appeal in the case of applications u/s 232 now lies to the Board of Revenue. The provisions of this amending Act have not however been 4. The sole question which is now before us is whether the Board was correct in so holding. 5. Section 331 of the Act reads thus: 331(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in column 4 of Sch. II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in column 3 thereof. (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the schedule aforesaid. (3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court mentioned in column 4 in the proceedings mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned in column 5 thereof. (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the schedule aforesaid. (3) An appeal shall lie from the final order passed by a court mentioned in column 4 in the proceedings mentioned in column 3 to the court or authority mentioned in column 5 thereof. (4) A second appeal shall lie from the final order passed in an appeal under Sub-section (3) to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in column 6 of the schedule aforesaid. Now at the date upon which the Board's judgment was delivered, that is to say on 7-4-1956, Sch. II to the Act, as amended by the UPZA and LR (Amendment) Act, 1952 (Act XVI of 1953), contained an entry, No. 16-A, which read as follows: Serial No. Section Descripition of Prodeedings Court of Original Jurisdiction Court of 1st Appeal Court of 2nd appeal 1 2 3 4 5 6 16-A 232 Application for restoration of possession by adhivasi to whom clause (b) of S. 20, is aplicable Assistant Collector in-charge of sub-division Commisnor made retrospective, and if the matter rested here there could be no doubt that a second appeal could not be entertained by the Board of Revenue in April, 1956. 6. Learned Counsel has however invited our attention to the provisions of Rule 191 of the Rules made u/s 240 of the Act. That rule provides that: (1) An appeal shall lie to the Commissioner from the final orders passed by the Assistant Collector-in charge of the sub-division u/s 232. (2) A second appeal shall lie to the Board from a final order deciding an appeal referred to in Sub-rule (1) on any of the following grounds and no other, and then sets out the grounds upon which such an appeal could be made. (2) A second appeal shall lie to the Board from a final order deciding an appeal referred to in Sub-rule (1) on any of the following grounds and no other, and then sets out the grounds upon which such an appeal could be made. The question is whether Sub-rule (2) of this rule was valid in April, 1956; and we are of opinion that it was not in the first place, Rule 191 was made in exercise of the rule making powers conferred upon the State Legislature by Section 240 of the Act, but the power thereby vested in the State is limited to the making of rules "for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter", that is Chapter IX, and nowhere in this Chapter is any section to be found making provisions for appeals. Secondly, the provision with regard to appeals is to be found in Section 331 of the Act. That section we have already quoted, and it is to be observed that Sub-section (2) of that section expressly provides that, except as provided in Sub-sections (3) and (4), no appeal shall lie from an order passed under my of the provisions mentioned in col. 3 of Sch. II. In April,1956 proceedings u/s 232 of the Act were proceedings mentioned in col. 3 of the Sch. II, under items 16A. We are, therefore, of opinion that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 was at the material time inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and can be of no avail to the Petitioner. 7. In our judgment the decision of the Board of Revenue is right and this petition fails. It is dismissed with costs.