JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, J.M. - The facts are: Defendant Ram Swaroop had filed second appeal No. 32 of 1989-90/Allahabad. On 28.6.1990 this was dismissed on merits by a Hon'ble Member. Aggrieved, an application in review is moved by defendant appellant Ram Swaroop. The application is under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. 2. We have heard the counsel for and against the review. 3. The onus is on defendant appellant Ram Swaroop to show that there are some errors apparent on the face of record. The attempt is high lighted in six grounds in application. It is our obligation to discern whether the grounds listed are really showing errors apparent in the order 28.6.1990. We begin. 4. Paragraph 1 makes a grievance of non-consideration of all grounds set forth in second memorandum of appeal. How we wish we knew with neat precision what is - that shut out of consideration. Paragraph 2 makes heavy weather of a Junior Advocates failure to argue all the points in clear and compelling perspective, With respect, this is not an error apparent on the face of record of this court. Paragraphs 3 and 4 raise a crucial contentions: In view of construction of a pucca house, plot in dispute not land within the meaning of Section 3 (14) Z.A. and L.R. Act. So courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate. This needs close reflection. The land in suit is plot No. 543 area 0-3-4. In this written statement defendant Ram Swaroop has set forth that he has constructed a house over the land which is enclosed by a boundary. We are of opinion that this is only a description that plot No. 543 is not a featureless landscape. Out of an area of 0-3-4 a house also is existing, as is confessed in ground No. 7 of memo of second appeal. The definition of land in Section 3 (14) Z.A. and L.R. Act does not require that it be under cultivation. It is enough if the land is either 'held' or occupied for a purpose connected with agriculture: AIR 1977 SC 2196 . If the land is occupied for purposes connected with agriculture etc. it will be covered by definition; 1981 ALJ 192 is elucidation of this position. There is no whisper of a suggestion in the pleading of defendant Ram Swaroop that land was not 'held' for agricultural purposes. If the land is occupied for purposes connected with agriculture etc. it will be covered by definition; 1981 ALJ 192 is elucidation of this position. There is no whisper of a suggestion in the pleading of defendant Ram Swaroop that land was not 'held' for agricultural purposes. If on a certain plot which forms part of a holding, certain constructions are raised, such lands would not cease to be part of the holding as is mediated in 1983 ALJ 388. The counsel has urged that a issue should have been formulated to determine whether plot No. 543 is land or not? Issues were framed on 29.1.1988 and judgment by lower court entered on 21.9.1988. For nearly three years Ram Swaroop has kept his powder dry. He never requested for an issue. Why? We are of opinion that alleged failure to frame an issue by Sub-Divisional Officer is not an error in the order dated 28.6.1990 to invoke our jurisdiction in review. Paragraphs 5 and 6 give sharpness and point to Sub-Divisional Officer's failure to frame an issue on trespass and possession. This alleged failure is never made a protest in an application form in lower court for nearly three years. It is not this cheerful acquiescence in the issues formulated on 29.1.1986? More, this matter is not a potential ground out of 10 listed in grounds of second appeal. Still more, this is not a bulking error in the order of Board of Revenue dated 28.6.1990. So this court is not to act gratuitously to raise and appraise a ground not set forth. The court is not to serve a cause. Ram Swaroop will not share. We more on to last paragraph. 5. It laments that Addl. Commissioner fails and falters in not recording a clear finding on trespass and limitation. This too has not been taken as one of the grounds in second appeal. Not an egregarious error apparent on the record of Board of Revenue. We do not find any mistake which bulks,. A review is not to throw open entire controversy embedded in the order. 6. The' counsel for applicant has called to attention 1987 R.D. 85 and 1988 R.D. 253 to buttress home his contention that consolidation court cannot decide title in respect of Abadi land. We are sure there is no abadi over the land. 7. A review is not to throw open entire controversy embedded in the order. 6. The' counsel for applicant has called to attention 1987 R.D. 85 and 1988 R.D. 253 to buttress home his contention that consolidation court cannot decide title in respect of Abadi land. We are sure there is no abadi over the land. 7. In the absence of sufficient reasons, the application in review is dismissed.