JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a review against the judgment of the Hon'ble Member dated 17-3-82, 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that plaintiff-opposite party no. 1 had filed the suit under Section 176, U.P.Z A. and L.R. Act. On 26-11-76 it was held by the trial court that the land may be sold to the plaintiff (being preferential claimant) under the provisions of Rule 159-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. It has been held so because the land was less than 3? acres. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, held that Rule 159-B had since been deleted and Rule 160 was inserted, therefore the land had to be auctioned amongst cotenure holders. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that the order of the trial court be set aside. The Hon'ble Member, Board of Revenue by his order dated 17-3-82 has held that Rule 159-B was deleted by Notification No. 53141-1 (101) dated 19th January, 1977 but again inserted by (Tenth Amendment) Rules, dated 8th March 1978. It is thus clear that provisions under which the trial court had passed the order though subsequently deleted were reinserted during the very pendency of the revision. This subsequent amendment seems to have escaped notice of the learned Additional Commissioner while making his recommendation. The Hon'ble Member Board of Revenue disagreed with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner and thereby dismissed the revision. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the revision should have been decided on merits and there was no dispute about the relevancy or the amendment of the provisions as held by the Hon'ble Member. He only contended that the revision should have been decided on merits and then it should have been dismissed or allowed accordingly. The learned counsel for the other side has stated that the review has got a very limited scope and no question of illegality or perversity in judgment can be seen in it. The point, what is the question or error apparent on the face of it, is to be seen. According to him, the question apparent on the face means which does not require any argument and he wants to say that the point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not such an error. 5. The point, what is the question or error apparent on the face of it, is to be seen. According to him, the question apparent on the face means which does not require any argument and he wants to say that the point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is not such an error. 5. We are not in disagreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel about the 'scope' or 'error apparent' and there cannot be two opinions about the same. It is not an appeal and it should be seen whether some mistakes are committed apparent on the face of it or there is some change in law, due to which it requires review. 6. In the present case after perusing the judgment the error appears to be a patent one. It is the jurisdiction of the revisional court to decide the revision on merits and not to limit its scope to the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. If the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner is not accepted, the revision is to be decided on merits and then the matter should come to an end or to a finality. This, does not require any argument except the perusal of the judgment itself. 7. We, therefore, hold that the revisional court is not bound by the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner. The jurisdiction of revisional court is not abridged by the recommendation of learned Additional Commissioner. It has to be decided on merits and on reasons for allowing or dismissing the revision. 8. Therefore we hold that there is sufficient ground for allowing the review application. The same is allowed. The order of the Hon'ble Member dated 17-3-82 is set aside. Let the case be put up before the Hon'ble Member concerned for disposal in accordance with law. Costs easy.