JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Sri S.P. Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 & 3, Sri J.P. Maurya, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that respondent No. 4/Pawan Kumar has filed a declaratory suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) s Suit No. 255/208(03-04) before respondent No. 3, the same was decreed by judgment and decree dated 10.02.2005, the petitioner on 16.08.2009 moved an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for recall of the said order, rejected vide order dated 04.02.2006. Aggrieved by the above said facts, petitioner filed first appeal No. 391A/2005-06 which was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 31.12.2001, accordingly, for redressal of his grievances petitioner filed Second Appeal No. 11 of 2011 (Gandhi Sahkari Awas Samiti v. Sarvan Kumar) before Board of Revenue, Allahabad, the same was dismissed by order dated 01.09.2015. 3. Lastly by means of the present writ petition, the petitioner approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the first and foremost question which is to be considered and decided that while deciding the second appeal, it is incumbent upon the Board of Revenue/respondent No. 1 to frame the substantial question of law/question of law. 5. In order to resolve the aforesaid controversy, it will be appropriate to go through the sub-section (4) of Section 331 and Section 341 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which read thus : 331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act- (1) ...... (2) ...... (3) ...... (4) 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. ..... ..... ..... 341. Application of certain Acts to the proceeding of this Act.--Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act. the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [V of 1908). ..... ..... ..... 341. Application of certain Acts to the proceeding of this Act.--Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act. the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [V of 1908). and the (Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963)), (including Section 5 thereof) shall apply to the proceedings under this Act. ......." 6. A conjoint reading of subsection (4) of Section 331 and Section 341 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. reveal that unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act the provisions of Indian Court Fees Act. 1870. the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act, 1963 including Section 5 thereof shall apply to the proceedings under U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. As regards second appeal, it is mandated under sub-section (4) of Section S31 that a second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified In Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 given in the end of the Act No. 1 of 1951. 7. What is a substantial question of law involved in the case? Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, 'the code', for short) as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1976 (104 of 1976) w.e.f. 1.2.1977 reads as under: - "100.Second Appeal. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question." 8. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of substantial question of law is the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended Section 100 of the Code. 9. In the case of (Miss) Louiza D'souza v. John Claudis Andrews and others, 2001 (92) R.D. 64, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that deciding the second appeal without framing substantial question of law by a court is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 100 C.P.C. and on the said ground set aside the order under challenge passed in second appeal and remanded the matter to decide afresh. 10. Moreover, learned counsel for respondent has also not disputed the position of law that while deciding the second appeal, the appellate court should frame substantial question of law. 11. Thus, keeping in view the above said facts, the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by Board of Revenue is set aside and the matter is remanded to the said authority to decide afresh in view of the observations made herein above. The said exercise may done expeditiously. 12. With the above observations, writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed.