ORDER

R.M. Sahai, J. - On facts found that opposite party No. 1 was mortgagee of Sir and Khudkast land before date of vesting, it is obvious that consolidation authorities committed an error of law in directing his name to be recorded as asami. Under cl. (d) of sub-s. (1) of S. 21 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1 of 1951, only, those mortgagees became Asamis who were in actual possession from persons belonging to any of the classes mentioned in els. (b) to (c) of sub-s. (1) of S. 18 of els. (i) to (vii) and (be) of S. 19. These classes are of persons who were tenants before the date of vesting. A Sir or Khudkast hold is not mentioned in it. In other words only tenants mortgagees became Asamis. Faced with this the learned counsel for opposite party argued that they being in possession from before the date of vesting acquired sirdari rights under section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, I of 1951. Learned counsel maintained that as the possession of opposite party was contrary to the provisions of law, it shall be deemed that he acquired rights of Sirdar. This controversy, however, stands concluded by a Full Bench decision in the case of Balwant Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (AIR 197