ORDER R.M. Sahai, J. - As a result of notification under section 4 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and abatement under section 5 of second suit filed under section 202 of Z.A. Act by the petitioners, since deceased, parties entered into third series of litigation for land in dispute. Earlier petitioners had filed suit under section 202 read with S. 21 of U.P. Z.A. Act of 1951 in 1957 against opposite parties 4 to 6 claiming that they being mortgagees of occupancy holding were liable to ejectment. Factum of mortgage was not disputed by opposite parties but it was claimed that it had been redeemed before date of vesting and they being its sub-tenants acquired adhivasi rights. It was also alleged that they acquired bhumidhari rights and transferred the land in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3, since deceased. As the question of bhumidhari was a question of title the trial court referred the issue to civil court which answered it in negative. It then found that the claim of opposite parties that mortgage was redeemed and they were sub-tenants was not found established by civil court. Consequently it decreed the suit on 29-5-58. In appeal it was held, that on the date of vesting the plaintiffs (petitioners) were occupancy tenants of the plots in dispute and defendants 1 to 3 (opposite parties 4 to 6) were licensees in possession as mortgagees, therefore petitioners became sirdar under section 19 and opposite parties assamis under section 21. The appellate court, however, modified the decree of the trial court as it came to conclusion that mortgage was for Rs. 166/13/- whereas petitioners had deposited Rs. 50/- only. It, therefore, directed that petitioners shall be entitled to possession if they deposited the balance within one month. It is not disputed that the amount was deposited as directed by the Civil Judge. But the opposite parties filed second appeal in this Court. And unfortunately for petitioners the appeal was allowed on 10-1-63 on technical plea of non-compliance of S. 202 (c) of Z.A. Act. But other findings were not touched. Rather the dismissal of suit for non-compliance was acceptance of the finding of subsistence of mortgage. This led to filing of second suit under section 202 which, however, was abated, when it was pending in Board of Revenue in second appeal. But other findings were not touched. Rather the dismissal of suit for non-compliance was acceptance of the finding of subsistence of mortgage. This led to filing of second suit under section 202 which, however, was abated, when it was pending in Board of Revenue in second appeal. In consolidation proceedings again opposite parties contested the petitioners' objection under section 9 of Consolidation of Holdings Act on the same plea. The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection. In appeal it was held that opposite parties were assamis and their claim based on finality of S. 240G proceedings under Z.A. Act had no merit. Both these orders were set aside by the Deputy Director. It was held that petitioners failed to prove mortgage. And even if there was any mortgage of occupancy holding it was illegal and opposite parties acquired adhivasi rights. It was also held that Z.A. Forms 101, 110 and 113 having become final the petitioners were estopped from claiming that opposite parties were assamis. It is the correctness of these findings that has been challenged by this petition. 2. The Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error of jurisdiction in recording the finding that petitioners failed to prove mortgage does not admit of any doubt. It was not open to him to go behind the findings recorded by Civil Judge in earlier suit which was not set aside by this court. Further the mortgage was not denied in that suit. The only controversy was about the amount and if it was redeemed before the date of vesting. In the circumstances the issue was foreclosed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted against law in setting aside the finding of Settlement Officer and Consolidation Officer on the question of mortgage. 3. Equally erroneous is the finding that as mortgage was illegal the opposite parties acquired adhivasi rights. It is contrary to Full Bench decision of this court. In Samharu v. Dharmaraj Pandey, 1969 All LJ 943 : ( AIR 1970 All 350 ), it was held that S. 21 of Z.A. Act did not make any distinction between valid and invalid mortgage. And even such a person who held land under invalid mortgage acquired assami rights. Mortgage of occupancy holding was not permissible under Tenancy Act. But the mortgagee could not acquire adhivasi rights. 4. And even such a person who held land under invalid mortgage acquired assami rights. Mortgage of occupancy holding was not permissible under Tenancy Act. But the mortgagee could not acquire adhivasi rights. 4. The petitioners, however, cannot succeed unless the finding on finality of compensation roll prepared under S. 240G of Z.A. Act can be said to suffer from any error of law. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that when controversy was decided by Deputy Director the interpretation of this section which held the field was that the proceedings under section 240G were not final (See 1967 All LJ 46). But subsequently in Awadh Singh v. Bikarma Ahir, 1975 Rev Dec 132 : ( AIR 1975 All 324 ) (FB) a Full Bench of five judges held that such proceedings are final unless it can be shown that notices were not served or fundamental procedure of law has not been followed. According to him due to change of interpretation the petitioners were prevented from establishing it before consolidation authorities that they had no notice and the entire proceedings were invalid. On the other hand learned counsel for opposite party urged that it having been found that petitioners had accepted compensation they are prevented from challenging the legality of those proceedings. It is indeed difficult to believe that petitioners who has been fighting since 1957 and had filed two suits would not have contested the proceedings under section 240G. But without going into this controversy as any observation may prejudice the case of parties it is expedient to permit the petitioners an opportunity before Deputy Director to prove whether proceedings under section 240G were finalised in accordance with law. 5. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The older of Deputy Director Consolidation is quashed. He shall afford opportunity to parties to prove if S. 240G proceeding was finalised as held in Full Bench decision, thereafter decide the revision in light of decision on this question only. Parties shall bear their own costs.