ORDER : Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Heard Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, Assisted by Shri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Shri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5. 2. These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assail the validity of an order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No.11 of 2001-2002 whereby the order dated 18.03.2002 passed by the first appellate court has been set aside, as a result of which the order passed by the learned trial court dated 29.02.2001 stands affirmed. 3. For proper appreciation of facts of this case, the following pedigree is relevant to be noticed. Nattha Hari Ram Ram Gopal Daya Ram (petitioner no.6) Ebrahim Lincoln (opp. Party no.5) Amrit Lal (Petitioner no.1) Raj Kumar (Petitioner no.2) Krishna Kumar (Petitioner no.3) Rajendra Prasad (Petitioner no.4) Anurag Prasad (Petitioner no.5) 4. On the basis of pleadings available on record, the facts which can be gathered as pleaded by the respective parties, are that prior to abolition of Zamindari, the original recorded tenure holder of the land in dispute, namely, plot no.171/1M and plot no.162 was one Smt. Zakiya Begum and Nattha the common ancestor of the parties was cultivating the same who became Asami of the land in question. Shri Natha is said to have died in the year 1959. After the death of Nattha, name of Hari Ram, his eldest son was recorded in the revenue records and as per the case set up by the petitioners Hari Ram was recorded as Karta of joint Undivided Hindu Family. 5. It has further been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 were initiated by the Urban Ceiling Department in which all the alleged co-sharers had filed their objections stating that the land in dispute was joint holding belonging to three co-sharers, namely, Hari Ram, Ram Gopal and Daya Ram, having one third share each. It has further been averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Prescribed Authority, Urban Ceiling Department, passed an order on 27.04.1979 holding that the land in question is joint holding of Hari Ram, Ram Gopal and Daya Ram and that Smt Ram Kali, the mother of Ebrahim Lincoln-respondent no.5 had admitted that all these three persons were co-sharers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that name of the common the common ancestors of the parties Nattha was also recorded in 1359 fasli and that all these three joint share holders and their respective successors have been in possession over the property in dispute. The dispute, however, appears to have arisen on the death of Hari Ram. When the respondent no.5 is said to have got his name recorded over the property in dispute and accordingly a suit was filed by the petitioners under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act seeking declaration of their rights as co-sharers over the property in dispute along with respondent no.5. The suit filed by the petitioners under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was, however, dismissed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Lucknow vide order dated 20.02.2001. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal challenging the order dated 20.02.2001 before the court of Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional Commissioner vide his judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 and the order dismissing the suit, dated 20.02.2001 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned trial court for consideration of the matter on merits afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.03.2002, the respondent no.5 filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the second appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 whereby the second appellate court has set aside the order passed by the first appellate court and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 7. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the order passed by the trial court dismissing the suit is a cryptic and non-reasoned order and further that the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners which has material bearing on the rights claimed by the petitioners, has not been considered. 7. Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has stated that the order passed by the trial court dismissing the suit is a cryptic and non-reasoned order and further that the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners which has material bearing on the rights claimed by the petitioners, has not been considered. He has further stated that the first appellate court properly appreciating the evidence on record has rightly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. the trial court, giving reasons for trial afresh. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the second appellate court has allowed the appeal without framing substantial questions of law and as such the order passed by the second appellate court not being in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 331 (4) of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act and also being against Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, is not sustainable. 8. Submission by Shri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners further is that by the order of remand no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite party-defendant and the parties will have ample opportunity to put forth their respective cases and hence though there was no occasion for the second appellate court to upset the judgment and order dated 18.02.2002 passed by the first appellate court, the second appeal has been allowed unwarrantedly by the learned second appellate court. 9. Opposing the prayer made in this petition, Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5 has stated that under law there is no requirement by the Board of Revenue to frame substantial questions of law as the Second Appeal is preferred under Section 331 (4) of U.P.Z.A & L. R. Act. He has further stated that the first appellate court by an omnibus order has directed de novo trial of the suit, which is impermissible and that merely because the parties are related by birth/blood, it cannot be said that property in dispute is the joint property held by the common ancestor of the parties. He has also submitted that the property in question is self acquired property of Hari Ram, father of respondent no.5, which is abundantly clear from the facts. He has also submitted that the property in question is self acquired property of Hari Ram, father of respondent no.5, which is abundantly clear from the facts. Smt. Zakia Begum had instituted the suit for ejectment not against Nattha, the common ancestor of the parties but against Hari Ram, who is the father of respondent no.5. Lastly, he has stated that even if the first appellate court had remanded the matter to the learned trial court, fresh trial is impermissible and giving an opportunity of adducing the evidence is not warranted. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. So far as the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners about the requirement of framing substantial question of law by the Board of Revenue while hearing the second appeal under section 331 (4) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is concerned, the issue is no more res integra as the same stands decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Mohan Singh and others, reported in [ (2012) 13 SCC 281 ]. This Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Singh and others (supra) has categorically held that no substantial question of law is required to be framed by the Board of Revenue in a second appeal. The said dictum has been followed by this Court in the case of Ram Deo and others vs. Dina Nath and others, reported in [ 2017 134 RD 261 ]. The relevant extract of the said judgment in the case of Ram Deo and others (supra) is extracted herein-below: 19. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appeal could not have been decided without framing a substantial question of law is also misconceived. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Mohan Singh, MANU/SC/0976/2012 : 2013 (118) RD 9 (SC) has held that no substantial question of law is required to be framed by the Board of Revenue in a second appeal. 11. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Mohan Singh, MANU/SC/0976/2012 : 2013 (118) RD 9 (SC) has held that no substantial question of law is required to be framed by the Board of Revenue in a second appeal. 11. In view of the aforesaid judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Court, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the second appeal could not have been decided by the Board of Revenue without framing substantial question of law merits rejections, which is hereby rejected. 12. However, so far as the validity of the order passed by the second appellate court on the other grounds is concerned, it is noticed that the second appellate court has upheld the judgment passed by the learned trial court whereby the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is on record as annexure no.11 to the writ petition, a perusal of which reveals that though three issues were framed; (i) whether late Ram Gopal was a co-tenant in the land in dispute? (ii) whether the land in dispute is ancestral property of the plaintiffs-petitioners? (iii) as to whether initially Sirdari and thereafter Bhumidhari rights were confirmed of Hari Ram, father of respondent no.5 and thus it is the respondent no.5, who is Bhumidhar of the land in question. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dismissing the suit does not discuss any evidence at all, it only makes a mention of certain evidences, however, no discussion is available on the said judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. The record of the case reveals that there is enough evidence which ought to have been weighed by the learned trial court before arriving at any conclusion or decision. The suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is a regular suit and proceedings of such a suit grant or refuse declaratory decree, however, the manner in which the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order in this case makes the entire proceedings drawn by him as if the proceedings are summary in nature. The suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is a regular suit and proceedings of such a suit grant or refuse declaratory decree, however, the manner in which the Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order in this case makes the entire proceedings drawn by him as if the proceedings are summary in nature. In a suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act valuable rights of the parties to hold the land are decided and hence the evidence available on record need to be considered and its effect is also required to be not only discussed but weighed by the learned trial court. In any such suit seeking declaration of rights, the proceedings should be drawn in a cursory manner. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in this case is absolutely non-speaking and cryptic which does not discuss evidence in detail, neither the effect of the evidence has been discussed or analyzed appropriately. 13. The first appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 18.03.2002 has thus considered the evidence including the khautani pertaining to 1359 fasli where it is the common ancestor of the parties, Nattha is recorded. He has also found and recorded in his order that after death of common ancestor, Nattha, name of Hari Ram, who is the eldest son, was recorded and thereafter on the death of Hari Ram, name of respondent no.5-Ebrahim Lincoln was recorded. Learned first appellate court has given a finding that the suit was dismissed in a cursory manner by the learned trial court. Learned first appellate court observes in its order that a finding as to how name of only Hari Ram was recorded in the wake of the fact that in khatauni pertaining to 1359 fasli name of the common ancestor of the parties, Nattha was recorded and as to how on the death of Nattha, it is only Hari Ram whose name was recorded excluding the names of Ram Gopal and Daya Ram, are crucial to determine the fate of the suit. 14. 14. The second appellate court did not agree with the judgment of the first appellate court solely on the ground that on the death of Nattha, petitioners kept silent which proves that the petitioners did not have any right and it is thus proved that the land was rightly recorded in the name of Hari Ram and that it is not parental property. Learned second appellate court has further recorded in its judgment and order dated 27.02.2005 that the order of the first appellate court is not based on concrete evidence which could give any right to the petitioners. 15. When the order passed by the learned second appellate court is examined, what is found is that a very crucial evidence i.e. name of common ancestor of the parties, Nattha being recorded in 1359 fasli has been ignored by the second appellate court. It is also relevant to observe at this juncture itself that the order of remand passed by the learned first appellate court is primarily based on non-consideration of evidence of the name of Nattha being recorded in khatauni pertaining to 1359 fasli. Merely because on death of Nattha, Ram Gopal, father of petitioner nos.1 to 5 and Daya Ram-petitioner no.6 did not raise any objection when the name of only Hari Ram was recorded, cannot be a ground for drawing inference that the petitioners did not have any right as co-sharers in the property in question. It is also noticeable that the case of the petitioners as pleaded in the suit before the learned trial court was that the property belonged to the common ancestor, Nattha which devolved on all the co-sharers, however, the same was recorded in the name of Hari Ram as Karta of the family being the eldest son of Nattha. 16. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the first appellate court in this case had not committed any irregularity or error which called for any interference in its judgment by the second appellate court i.e. the Board of Revenue. 17. 16. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the first appellate court in this case had not committed any irregularity or error which called for any interference in its judgment by the second appellate court i.e. the Board of Revenue. 17. The writ petition is, thus, allowed and the judgment and order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No.11 of 2001-02, Ebrahim Lincoln vs. Raj Kumar and others as well as the judgment and order dated 20.02.2001 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class/Additional Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow in Case No.45/66/100/230/2000-01, under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, Raj Kumar and others vs. Ebrahim Lincoln and others, are hereby quashed. 18. The Sub Divisional Officer concerned is directed to decide the suit afresh in terms of the order of remand dated 18.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No.348/2001, Raj Kumar and others vs. Ebrahim Lincoln and others. The proceedings of the suit shall be expedited by the Sub Divisional Officer concerned and the same shall be concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 19. It is further directed that the parties to the suit shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and adjournment, if prayed for by the parties, will be permissible to be granted by the learned Presiding Officer only in exceptional circumstances. Costs are made easy.