JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a review application against the order dated January 4, 1977 passed by a learned Member M.P. Pandey, since retired in Second Appeal No. 275 of 1975-76 District Farrukhabad. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the judgments. 3. The Gaon Sabha had filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the applicant Sunder. Sunder contested the suit by claiming that he had become Sirdar of the land on the basis of possession since before the abolition of Zamindari, and that he was declared to be a Sirdar of this land in a case under Rule 115-E of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. On January 23, 1973 the trial court decreed the suit of the Gaon Sabha. Sunder filed an appeal and the case was remanded to the trial court for decision afresh. On April 16, 1974 the suit was decreed again. Sundar again filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner by the order dated June 19, 1976. The second appeal field by Sundar has been dismissed by the learned Member on January 4, 1977. This order is being challenged in the present review application. 4. The first ground taken in the review application is that Rule 115-E of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules is a valid and statutory rule and the Tahsildar was seized of powers to realise land revenue from the applicant and that the said rule is not ultra vires of the Legislature. This ground is entirely irrelevant. Neither the trial court nor the first appellant court nor the learned Member have expressed any view on the vires of Rule 115-E and therefore this ground is meaningless. 5. The second ground taken in the review application is that the State of U.P. possessing a paramount title over all lands could confer Sirdari rights. The ground raises an interesting question about the scope of Rule 115-E of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. For facility of reference rule 115-E is reproduced below: "115-E(2) In case the person to whom notice in Z.A. Form 49-A has been issued contests the notice, he shall be required to file his objection in triplicate. The ground raises an interesting question about the scope of Rule 115-E of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. For facility of reference rule 115-E is reproduced below: "115-E(2) In case the person to whom notice in Z.A. Form 49-A has been issued contests the notice, he shall be required to file his objection in triplicate. The Land Management Committee or the local authority, as the case may be, shall be informed to appear on the date fixed for evidence along with necessary documents and witnesses which such Committee (sic) authority might like to produce. In the case of the Land Management Committee a copy of the objection shall be given to the Gaon Sabha Panel Lawyer and another copy shall be sent to the Chairman of the Committee and in the case of a local authority, a copy of the objection shall be given to the Standing counsel, if any, thereof and another copy shall be sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the authority. It is only after considering the evidence, if any, of the objector and the Land Management Committee or local authority as the case may be that the Collector Shall pass final orders. (3) If the Collector comes to the conclusion that the objector is in legal occupation of the land under notice as a tenure holder or that he did not cause any damage to or misappropriation or wrongful occupation off, any property vested in the Gaon Sabha, or the local authority, as the case may be the proceedings will be dropped and a copy of the order shall be sent to the Tahsildar concerned for information or necessary action for getting the land revenue or rent fixed according to law. (4) In case the Collector holds that the objector has caused the damage to or misappropriation or wrongful occupation of any property bested in the Gaon Sabha, or the local authority as the case may be and he is present in court the Collector shall soon after announcing his final order, serve upon him an abstract or final order in Z.A. Form 49-B. In contested case where the objector is not present on the date of the final order or in case the person against whom notice was issued in Z.A. Form 49-A is absent in spite of service and orders have been passed against him ex parte, the Collector shall cause a notice in Z.A. Form 49-B to be served upon him." 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has expressed the view that Rule 115-E empowers the State, the Collector or the Tahsildar to confer Sirdari rights. In other words, the learned counsel has equated Rule 115-E with Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. I cannot agree with this view. It is an established principle of law that proceedings under Rule 115-D to 115-G of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules are summary in nature and cannot either confer any rights to take away any rights. Rule 115-H makes the position quite clear: "115-H. Nothing in Rules 115-D to 115-G shall debar any person from establishment of his right in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the law for the time being in force in respect of any matter for which any order has been made by the Collector." This means that it is open to a person who has been ejected in proceedings under Rule 115-D to 115-G to establish his rights in a Revenue Court through a regular suit. Likewise, it is also open for the Gaon Sabha who has lost its case in proceedings under Rules 115-D to 115-G to reassert its rights in a regular suit under Section 229-B or 209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in the regular suit will therefore override the order in proceedings under Rules 115-D to 115-G. The converse is not true. Orders in proceedings under Rules 115-D to 115-G cannot override the orders of the competent Revenue Court in a regular suit. Orders in proceedings under Rules 115-D to 115-G cannot override the orders of the competent Revenue Court in a regular suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been conferred Sirdari rights by the State in proceedings under Rule 115-E of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules in unsound and must be rejected. 7. The third contention is that the Gaon Sabha possessing merely delegated and supervisory powers from the State was bound by the acts and conduct of his master on the principle of vicarious liability and could not maintain the impugned suit for the ejectment of the applicant. This contention is misleading. Nowhere has the State conferred Sirdari rights on the applicant. The order of the Tahsildar under Rule 115-E is not the order of the State. It is an order of a subordinate judicial authority in a summary proceeding and it has to be adjudicated judicially by higher judicial authorities. The State does not come in to the picture at all. The fact that the Presiding Officers of the courts derive their salaries from the State does not mean that the Presiding Officers are agents of the State even in judicial proceedings. On the other hand the Presiding Officers are independent judicial authorities who may decide any matter in favour of the State or against the State. 8. The fourth contention is that the possession of the applicant was not without consent and not against law and on the de-notification of the village the suit was barred by time. This contention goes into the merits of the case which is beyond the scope of a review application. 9. The fifth contention is that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record as the aforesaid salient facts escaped the consideration of the Board of Revenue. This is indeed a most important point. The learned counsel for the applicant has, however, failed to show any mistake apparent on the face of the record. Whatever view of law expressed by him this has been done by the learned Member with his eyes open and there is no apparent mistake at all. Even a different view of law cannot constitute a ground of review. I may, however add that I agree with the findings as well as the view of law recorded by the learned Member. 10. Even a different view of law cannot constitute a ground of review. I may, however add that I agree with the findings as well as the view of law recorded by the learned Member. 10. The last ground taken in the review application is that the disputed land was not the Gaon Sabha land and the suit was not maintainable. This ground has not substance at all. In the consolidation operations the land had been recorded as "Navin Parti", and the learned Member has correctly observed that "if the land has been recorded as Navin Parti, unless it has been entered in the name of the applicant, the Gaon Sabha shall be deemed to be the owner of the land in dispute." The position may be summed up as follows: "Under Para 60 of the Land Records Manual the Khasra is maintained in Form P-3. In column 5 of this form the name of cultivator and rent is to be recorded. In column 19, class of land is to be recorded. The Khatauni that is a register of persons cultivating or otherwise occupying land is maintained in Form P-11 under Para 121 (sic) the Land Record Manual. Column 2 of this form mentions the name of cultivator with parentage and residence. Thus, if the name of any cultivator is recorded in column 5 of the Khasra of column 2 of the Khatauni, he can claim rights in the land even if the land is not under cultivation and is recorded as fallow in column 19. But where the name of any person is not recorded as the cultivator in column 5 of the Khasra or column 2 of the Khatauni, and the land is merely recorded as 'Navin Parti', such land will be deemed to vest in the Gaon Sabha, and the words 'Navin Parti' would merely indicate the class of the land. Where the consolidation authorities have recorded any land as Navin Parti in C.H. From 45, as is the case in the present proceedings, this would mean that there has been adjudication of rights in favour of the Gaon Sabha by the consolidation authorities, and this adjudication is binding under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Where the consolidation authorities have recorded any land as Navin Parti in C.H. From 45, as is the case in the present proceedings, this would mean that there has been adjudication of rights in favour of the Gaon Sabha by the consolidation authorities, and this adjudication is binding under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In fact the learned Additional Commissioner has specifically observed that the case of the applicant that he was a Sirdar of the land was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and this observation has been implicitly upheld by the learned Member." 11. Prima facie the review application has no substance and it is hereby dismissed.