JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, Member. - In this revision the point involved is whether the trespasser should pay compensation to the L.M.C. at two times of the land revenue or 50 times. Under rule 115-F of the Z.A. and L.R. Rules, the compensation was to be calculated at the following rates from different dates:- (i) Upto January 27, 1969-2 times of land No. 3223/1-A-553-61 dated August 11, 1964 revenue. (ii) From January, 28, 1969-50 times of L.R.- No. 355/1-A-2-1(2) 168 dated January 28, 1969. (iii) From August 14, 1971-5 to 20 times of L.R.- No. 199/1-A-8-5(1)-70 dated July 31, 1971. (iv) From May 11, 1974-100 times of L.R.- No. 284/2-1(3) 73-Rev. 1 dated April 25, 1974 published on July 11, 1974. 2. In the case under revision the trespasser has been saddled with a compensation at the rate of 50 times. When the trespasser went in revision, the learned Addl. Commissioner reduced it from 50 times to 20 times. He heard the revision on December 14, 1971. At that time S1. No. (iii) 5 to 20 times was in force and when the learned Tahsildar had heard the case S1. No. (ii) was in force and, therefore, they calculated it at 20 and 50 times. 3. The learned Addl. Commissioner has referred the revision to the Board with the recommendation that the compensation should have been calculated at 20 times. It has been urged on behalf of revisionist that both the courts have committed a mistake inasmuch as they have calculated the compensation @ the rate which was prevailing when they had passed their judgments. It has been urged that if it is allowed to happen there now the rate has gone up to 100 times from November 1, 1975 and in this way the Board should increase the compensation money by calculating at 100 times of the land revenue. I find plenty of force in this argument. Compensation should have been calculated at the rate which was prevalent when the trespasser was in actual possession of the land. I am supported in this view by 1974 R.D. 310 in which one of my learned colleagues has held that the rate should be determined with reference to the time when the trespasser was in actual possession. If at that time the rate was 2 times or 20 times or 50 times or 100 times, then compensation should be calculated accordingly. If at that time the rate was 2 times or 20 times or 50 times or 100 times, then compensation should be calculated accordingly. It is, therefore, clear that the learned Tahsildar has committed a mistake. He should have calculated the compensation in the present case at twice the land revenue because the case was filed before January 28, 1969 and at that time the prevailing rate was two times as given at S1. (i). According to the notice the circle rate is Rs. 17.81. So two times of this will be Rs. 35.62 and as according to the finding of the learned. Tahsildar, the trespasser was in possession for 3 years. This amount will be Rs. 106.86. 4. In view of the above the order under revision is set aside. The learned Tahsildar will not impose compensation as given above. 5. Judgment signed dated and pronounced in the open court.