The dispute in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution is relatable to the payment of compensation to the petitioner whose land measuring about 4940 Bigha came to vest in the Government under the provisions of Assam Fixation of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, I 956 The arena of dispute is rather narrow and the same is whether the land measuring 3780 Bigba could be regarded as fallow land or non-fallow land. The relevance about the character of land is that if the land is fallow the owner gets compensation (a 25 times of land revenue ; whereas if it be non-fallow land the compensation is 50 times of land revenue. It may be stated that while making provisional assessment by the Collector 150 Bighas were found to be fallow and approximately 4789 Bighas were found to be non fallow. This clarification of the land appeared to be rather "abnormal” by the Government which led its Deputy Secretary to ask the Collector to re examine the matter. Accordingly, the matter was re-examined and from Annexure-V, we find that about 1000 Bigbas were found in actual occupation of the owner which was therefore taken to be non-fallow land. Remaining 3780 Bighas and odd was found to be under unauthorised occupation. As these unauthorised occupants were not tenants it was stated in the letter of the Additional Feputy Commissioner to the Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Assam that the same was shown as under occupation of the owner and not being fallow. So Shri Barua contends that even after the second enquiry out of about 4780 Bighas, 1000 Bighas and odd was found to be under the occupation of the owner and the remaining land also, though not under occupation of the owner, as non-fallow land. Shri Bordoloi has however submitted that the land which was under the occupation of the encroachers of trespassers could not be regarded as non-fallow land though he admits that is the land would have been under the occupation of the tenants the same might not have been characterised as fallow. 2. We are of the view that just because the land was under occupation of the unauthorised occupiers, it cannot be said that the land was fallow, inasmuch as per Explanation to section 12 of the aforesaid Act land could be regarded as fallow when it is not cultivated for three consecutive years. 2. We are of the view that just because the land was under occupation of the unauthorised occupiers, it cannot be said that the land was fallow, inasmuch as per Explanation to section 12 of the aforesaid Act land could be regarded as fallow when it is not cultivated for three consecutive years. There is nothing on the record to show if the unauthorised occupiers had kept the land fallow. Merely because the land was under unauthorised occupiers it cannot be held that the land was kept fallow. Thus, according to us, an apparent error of law was committed by the authorities in holding the land under the occupation of unauthorised occupiers as fallow land. We are not ordering further enquiry in this matter at this stage because the position of the land as it existed in 1975 cannot be ascertained now and so we direct the respondents to treat the aforesaid land as non-fallow. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed as stated above. Sangma, J — I agree.