ORDER R.S. Shukla, Member This order will also govern Review Application No. 10/I-A-13/56. The two applications for review arise out of a common order passed by Shri B.L. Pandey, ex-Member, Board of Revenue, in Appeals Nos. 299/I-A-13/53 and 537/I-A-13/55 both preferred by the representative villagers of Tillage Timri, tahsil Patan, district Jabalpur. The Respondents, in these appeals, were Gabdoo and others-the ex-proprietors of the village. The facts of the case are very elaborately given in the order under review. Briefly speaking, the bone of contention between the parties is khasra No. 63, area 12.30 acres, which is recorded as malik-makbuza of non-applicants Gabdoo etc. In the wajib-ul-arz, khasra No. 63 is recorded as 'Bag Bafa-e-am' and it was contended by the villagers that this Bag was not only intended to be but was, in fact, used by the villagers for a very long time in the past for general Nistar of the villagers such as Gothan, Khaliyan, grazing and, for the passage of carts. The opposite party, however, contended that the land was originally a muafi but since 1950-51 they were paying rent thereof and as such they were entitled to bring the land under their own cultivation and, in exercise of their rights, were justified in obstructing the villagers from using the land for Nistar purposes. The dispute between the parties gave rise to proceedings u/s 219 of the Land Revenue Act and the Additional Deputy Commissioner Shri D.H. Deshmukh held that the villagers were not entitled to general Nistar in khasra No. 63 and there had been no breach of the wajib-ul-arz. Later, in 1955, the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Nistar Officer (Shri K.S. Bela-purkar) took up the matter u/s 78 read with Section 106 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act and decided, on the basis of his inquiry, that one acre of land each for Gothan, Khaliyan should be allowed on this land as also a passage of 20 links for the purpose of cart-track. Not satisfied with the orders of Shri Deshmukh and Shri Belapurkar the villagers went up to the Board of Revenue in one appeal against the order of Shri Deshmukh (Appeal No. 299-53) and in another against Shri Belapurkar (Appeal No. 537-55). Not satisfied with the orders of Shri Deshmukh and Shri Belapurkar the villagers went up to the Board of Revenue in one appeal against the order of Shri Deshmukh (Appeal No. 299-53) and in another against Shri Belapurkar (Appeal No. 537-55). Both the appeals were heard together and it was held by Shri B.L. Pandey that although the entry 'Bag Bafa-e-am' in the wajib-ul-arz was not very clear in its connotation, he was inclined to agree with the views of the Additional Deputy Commissioner that it did not convey the meaning that the disputed land was subject to all kinds of Nistar of the villagers. He, however, found that, even apart from the entry in the wajib-ul-arz, certain easements had come to be created and must be recognised u/s 225 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Finally, Shri Pandey set aside the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and confirmed the order of Shri Belapurkar with the modification that 2 acres each, out of khasra No. 63, instead of one acre, should be fixed for Gothan and Khaliyan. It is this order of Shri Pandey that both the parties, the villagers and the ex-proprietor Gabdoo and Ors. have sought to be reviewed. The main contention of the villagers (Review No. 10-56) is that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, omitted to reserve land for 'grazing' which was done for the last 30 or 35 years on the disputed land. It is further urged that the Nistar rights were spread over the whole area of khasra No. 63 and it was not competent for the Board to have restricted such rights over four acres only. The contention of the ex-proprietor (Review No. 9-56) is that Shri Belapurkar was not vested with powers to act under Sections 78 and 106 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act. Nor could he pass an order u/s 225 of the Land Revenue Code as on the date he passed the order (28-3-55) the Code had not come into force. The order of Shri Belapurkar could at best be regarded as mere recommendation against which no appeal could lie to the Board of Revenue. Nor could he pass an order u/s 225 of the Land Revenue Code as on the date he passed the order (28-3-55) the Code had not come into force. The order of Shri Belapurkar could at best be regarded as mere recommendation against which no appeal could lie to the Board of Revenue. Another contention raised is that even if Section 225 of the M.P. Code was applicable, Gothan and Khaliyan were not 'easements' within the meaning of Section 225 and the learned Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, acted beyond his jurisdiction in ordering entries in the wajib-ul-arz for Gothan and Khaliyan. I will take up the contention of the ex-proprietor (Review No. 9-56) first. It appears that the entire argument of the Learned Counsel is based on a misconception. A copy of the order appointing Shri Belapurkar as Additional Deputy Commissioner was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner's office and it was found that vide Revenue Department's Notification No. 3827-XII, dated 25-6-53, Shri Belapurkar was appointed Additional Deputy Commissioner in Patan tahsil in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 9-A of the C.P Land Revenue Act, 1917. It was, therefore, clear that Shri Belapurkar had all the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the Land Revenue Act and was within his jurisdiction to act u/s 78 read with Section 106 ibid. It was, therefore, perfectly competent for Shri Pandey to take up the appeal against Shri Belapurkar's order. The Learned Counsel for the ex-proprietor vehemently argued that the proceedings for the preparation of the Nistar Patrak and the wajib-ul-arz could be started only after 1-10-55 when the M.P. Code came into force. As such the inquiries and orders, if made u/s 225, were without jurisdiction: I am afraid, this view is wholly unsupportable. It is apparent from the record that Shri Belapurkar initiated proceedings u/s 78 read with Section 106 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act which had nothing to do with the preparation of Nistar Patrak, a term which, no doubt, came into legal existence on the enforcement of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. As stated already, Shri Belapurkar had powers to act u/s 78 etc. and the Board had similarly the appellate jurisdiction. As stated already, Shri Belapurkar had powers to act u/s 78 etc. and the Board had similarly the appellate jurisdiction. It seems that the mention of Section 225 of the M.P. Code, in the impugned order of the Board, gave the Learned Counsel an impression that Section 225 could not be made use of unless the lower Court had acted under the same section. As a matter of fact, the Board could have passed the order which it did even if Section 225 of the M.P. Land Revenue Act had not been in existence. The proceeding having been started under the Land Revenue Act, an appeal would, subject to admissibility and limitation, continue to lie to the Board under the same Act, irrespective of the fact that the Land Revenue Act was repealed on 1-10-55 on the enforcement of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. An appeal is a continuation of the Lis and the abrogation of an Act, permitting an appeal, would not take away the jurisdiction of appellate Court unless there is anything to show that the repeal was expressly made retrospective in its effect. There is nothing in Section 238 of the M.P. Code to show that the C.P. Land Revenue Act was repealed with retrospective effect. On the other hand, Section 239 of the M.P. Code read with Section 5 of the General Clauses Act would make it clear that the impugned order of the Board could as well have been passed without any reference to Section 225 of the M.P. Code. As it is, however, there was no mistake on the part of Shri Pandey in referring to Section 225 for on the date of his order Section 225, which is in essence a repetition of the provisions of the old C.P. Land Revenue Act, had come into existence. Any future action regarding entries in the wajib-ul-arz should have obviously been referable to Section 225. I, therefore, see no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record to entitle me to interfere with the impugned order on this score. Any future action regarding entries in the wajib-ul-arz should have obviously been referable to Section 225. I, therefore, see no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record to entitle me to interfere with the impugned order on this score. The second contention on behalf of the ex-proprietor is with regard to the interpretation of the words 'other easements' occurring both in Section 78, Land Revenue Act and Section 225 of the M.P. Code, I may only refer to the following definition of 'easements' in the Indian Easements Act to show that the argument of the Learned Counsel has no force. 4. An easement is a right which the owner or occupier of certain land possesses, as such, for the beneficial enjoyment of that land, to do and continue to do something, or to prevent and continue to prevent something being done, in or upon, or in respect of, certain other land not his own. Illustration (d)-A, as the owner of a certain house and farm, has the right to graze a certain number of his own cattle on B's field, or to take, for the purpose of being used in the house, by himself, his family, guests, lodgers and servants, water or fish out of C's tank, or timber out of D's wood, or to use, for the purposes of manuring his land, the leaves which have fallen from the trees on E's land. These are easements. Illustration (d) thereof may particularly be noted. It would be seen that the contention of the Learned Counsel that easement claimed should pertain only to the land in possession of the claimant is entirely erroneous. There is no doubt in my mind that Gothan and Khaliyan are easements within the meaning of the above definition and there is little substance in the Learned Counsel's contention. Coming to the points urged on behalf of the villagers, it may be stated that a review cannot be permitted simply because the reviewing officer or Court may have different views on questions of law or may be in disagreement with the conclusions on questions of facts. it would be observed that under the Land Revenue Code powers of review have been limited or circumscribed by-specifying the grounds on which a review may be made. it would be observed that under the Land Revenue Code powers of review have been limited or circumscribed by-specifying the grounds on which a review may be made. This is in striking difference with the very wide review powers that were conferred u/s 40(1) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act. It is true that an order can even now be reviewed on "any other sufficient reason" besides 'the discovery of new and important matter or evidence' and 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record'. But the 'sufficiency' of reason cannot be so liberally and widely interpreted as to permit the re-opening of a case and to reaching fresh decision on any and every point that an applicant may choose to raise. If all relevant and material facts have been taken into consideration by the original Court it would not be sufficient reason to review an order on the ground that the facts are capable of leading to a different conclusion. For then, there would hardly be any distinction between review, on the one hand, and an appeal or revision, on the other. Bearing the above observations in mind, it would not be proper for me to enter into the discussion whether the entry in the wazib-ul-arz did or did not confer all kinds of Nistar rights over the entire area of khasra No. 63. The finding of Shri B.L. Pandey is very clear on this point. After discussing the matter in the light of the provisions of Articles 163 and 211 (B)of the Settlement Code he observed that "this does not enable us to conclude, however, that the settlement authorities intended that the land should be subject to all kinds of Nistar". Further in para. 8 of his order it is said "the claim of the Appellants to joint Nistar over whole of the area of the grove khasra No. 63 cannot be accepted". It is clear, that so far as the wajib-ul-arz is concerned' his finding is definite and conclusive. His order recognizing certain easements in favour of the villagers was not due to any support from the wajib-ul-arz, but because the evidence disclosed that certain easements had come to be created during the past 30 or 35 years which deserved to be recognized u/s 225 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. His order recognizing certain easements in favour of the villagers was not due to any support from the wajib-ul-arz, but because the evidence disclosed that certain easements had come to be created during the past 30 or 35 years which deserved to be recognized u/s 225 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Having concluded that certain easement had come to be created, it was but natural to relate them to a specified area of khasra No. 63, in view of the finding that the Nistar could not be taken to extend over the whole area. There is, therefore, no question of reducing any area that might have been lawfully reserved for Nistar purposes. The problem was to specify some area out of khasra No. 63 for the exercise of the villagers' easement right which had sprung up during the last 30 or 35 years. No evidence seems to have been adduced by the villagers to show what this area had been and in these circumstances recourse had to be had to what was really reasonable in the light of local circumstances. In this view, I agree that there is some force in the villagers' argument that although it was admitted by one of the owners of the land that khasra No. 63 was used for grazing also, the learned Member of the Board made no provision for the same in his order as he had done for Gothan and Khaliyan. It is not quite correct, however, to say that the question of grazing was not in his mind. This point is discussed in para. 19 of the impugned order. But it seems, the learned Member was misled by the order of Shri Belapurkar into believing that as other areas were reserved for grazing, there was no need to allow grazing land on khasra No. 63. My attention was drawn to the currer. Nistar Patrak and wajib-ul-arz of the village and I find that only Order 27 acre is at present available for about 250 cattle of the village. It is, therefore, patent that great injustice would be done to the villagers if, in the face of ex-proprieto Ganga Prasad's statement dated 24-10-51, no area in khasra No. 63 is allowed for grazing which is one of the Nistar that the villagers have admittedly been enjoying for the last 30 to 35 years. It is, therefore, patent that great injustice would be done to the villagers if, in the face of ex-proprieto Ganga Prasad's statement dated 24-10-51, no area in khasra No. 63 is allowed for grazing which is one of the Nistar that the villagers have admittedly been enjoying for the last 30 to 35 years. I am conscious of the fact that Section 225 of the M.P. Code does not authorize the Deputy Commissioner to create new customs; he has only to "ascertain and record" them. But this is not a case in which the impugned order of Shri Pandey or the order that I am going to pass would 'create' any customs. They would only mean specifying area on which the recognized easements would be exercisable and this has to be done; as a measure of necessity, as the same was not clearly specified in the past. If this is not done mere mentioning the easements would give no relief to the parties. To sum up, there is no valid ground to review the order of Shri B.L. Pandey except in so far as it omitted to make provision for grazing in khasra No. 63. I consulted the Learned Counsel on both sides as to the extent of the area that may be considered sufficient for this purpose. They could not agree on a definite figure but keeping their discussion in mind I think an area of 3 acres may well be allowed in addition to the area for Gothan and Khaliyan. It would be for the Deputy Commissioner to mark the area on the spot taking the local topography and the convenience of the parties into consideration. Subject to the modification of the Board's order dated 26-7-56 as indicated in para. 16 above, both the review applications are rejected. The Deputy Commissioner will now take action as directed. Final Result : Allowed