JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. This is second round of litigation during consolidation proceedings. In first round matter reached upto the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it was remitted back to Settlement Officer of Consolidation to decide afresh. 2. On remand, an appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 07.09.1974, whereby possession of petitioner/ appellant was found continuous from 1954, on basis of a mortgage deed and it was held that since no proceedings were undertaken for eviction, therefore, he was settled with the right of Bhumidhari, whereas respondents were found neither in possession nor otherwise held to be entitled for right on land in dispute. Relevant part of order is mentioned hereinafter: (Emphasis supplied) 3. A revision was filed at instance of the respondents, which was allowed in part, vide order dated 23.08.1976, whereby order of Appellate Authority was modified to the extent that respondents were held Bhumidhar and petitioner was held to be Asami in view of Section 21 d) of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1950"). Relevant part of order is reproduced hereinafter: (Emphasis supplied) 4. Sri. Santosh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that possession of petitioner was held by all authorities since 1954 over land in dispute. It has also been held by all authorities that no suit was filed or any action was taken by respondents or by Gaon Sabha to evict petitioner. Therefore, findings returned by Appellate Authority that petitioner has attained right of Bhumidhari was wrongly interfered to the extent that petitioner was given right of Asami only as well as respondents were wrongly held Bhumidhar though their right was rejected by two lower authorities. 5. Sri. Sanjay Kumar Ray, learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submitted that in view of Section 204 of Act, 1950 even today in case petitioner may be able to show that respondents have not taken any steps to evict him, still he would get benefit of above referred provision. 6. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents though a counter affidavit was filed on their behalf. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. Relevant paragraphs of counter affidavit are mentioned hereinafter: "9. 6. None appeared on behalf of contesting-respondents though a counter affidavit was filed on their behalf. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. Relevant paragraphs of counter affidavit are mentioned hereinafter: "9. That in reply the contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the objection filed by the petitioner was not only dismissed on the technical grounds but also on the other grounds e.g. on the own admission made by the petitioner and absence of any entry regarding possession in favour of petitioner. It is, further, submitted that after consideration of entire records of the case consolidation officer rightly dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner. 10. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that statement made by the deponent in civil suit was not relevant and learned S.O.C. has rightly ignored that statement. Petitioner himself had himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot no. 866. 11. That the contents of paragraph 9 of the writ petition are not correct as stated and as such denied. It is submitted that both the theory of exchange and mortgage were held as void and against the provision of law. As the certified copy of the statement made by the deponent was accepted by the A.S.O.C. without affording an opportunity to the deponent to confront it and to meet the same learned D.D.C. remanded the case before the S.O.C. for consideration of case after taking other evidences, if any, as fresh. Petitioner never entered into the possession over the plot in dispute and he had himself admitted this position in the civil suit filed by him. 12. That in reply to the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition it is submitted that learned S.O.C. has wrongly without properly appreciating the facts and law applicable to the case allowed the appeal. It is very pertinent to mention here that petitioner neither pleaded, nor claimed to be in adverse possession over the land in dispute and has failed to prove his possession much less continuous possession over the land in dispute for over the statutory period of limitation. Petitioner has himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot in dispute. Petitioner has himself admitted that he was not in possession over the plot in dispute. It is, further, submitted that the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned A.S.O.C. are based of no evidence and are liable to be set aside." 8. There are two important aspects of the case. First was 'interchange' between Durbali and Harihar Nath Respondents) and thereafter 'mortgage' by Durbali in favour of Jagdev Petitioner). Therefore, in case 'interchange' was declared void, then 'mortgage' would have no legal consequence and possession of petitioner would be without any legal authority. 9. The Appellate Authority has held that 'interchange' was already declared void, therefore, 'mortgage' has no legal consequence, however, petitioner's possession was found continuous from 1954 and since no proceedings were undertaken to evict him, therefore, he was declared Sirdar. 10. The Revisional Authority held that once 'interchange' was found to be illegal, therefore, 'mortgage' also become illegal. The Revisional Authority however held that on basis of illegal possession no Sirdari right would be given to petitioner. Sirdari right will be with original owner, i.e., Harihar Nath Respondent) and on ground of possession, petitioner would be Asami only under Section 21 d) of Act, 1950. 11. The above findings are self contrary. Revisional Authority on one hand held that petitioner could not get any right on basis of mortgage deed and on other hand declared him Asami on basis of mortgage deed only. 12. As soon as 'interchange' was declared void, mortgage also become void, therefore, possession of petitioner become illegal which remained continued for many years and admittedly no proceedings for eviction was taken at behest of respondents and, therefore, its legal consequence would fall. 13. In aforesaid circumstances Section 210 of Act, 1950 become important. According to said provision if a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a Bhumidhar or Asami or a decree for eviction obtained in such suit is not executed within the period of limitation, the person taking or retaining possession will become Bhumidhar or Asami as the case may be and legal consequence of it would fall. 14. 14. In the present case, since mortgage was declared to be illegal by all the authorities, therefore, application of Section 21 d) of Act, 1950 was erroneously applied by Revisional Authority whereas Appellate Authority has rightly applied the provisions of Section 210 of Act, 1950 and held that petitioner become Sirdar since no proceeding of eviction was undertaken. 15. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.08.1976 is hereby set aside and order of Appellate Authority dated 07.09.1974 is upheld.