Judgment :- 1. Plaintiffs claimed compensation from the Kerala State Electricity Board on the ground that they alone are entitled to it and not the first defendant. Certain trees from the property owned by the plaintiffs and in the leasehold possession of the 1st defendant were cut and removed by the Electricity Board. The compensation amount was given to the first defendant. The claim of the plaintiffs for the compensation amount was rejected by the trial Court holding that the tenant (1st defendant) alone is entitled to it on account of the vesting of the rights of the landlords with the Government with effect from 1-1-1970 as provided by the Kerala Land Reforms Act. As the first defendant is admittedly a tenant the right of the plaintiffs over the property as landlords have vested with the Government from 1-1-1970. Admittedly the trees were cut long thereafter. It is in evidence that the Land Tribunal. Tellicherry had issued purchase certificate to the first defendant as per order in O.S. 1034 of 1972. This is evidenced by Ext. B-2. 2. Contention of the plaintiffs is that the trees cut and removed by the Electricity Board belonged to them and as the purchase certificate was issued by the Land Tribunal to the 1st defendant long after the cutting of the trees. they alone are entitled to the compensation amount. The short question to be considered is whether a landlord is entitled to the compensation amount if the trees belonging to him were cut and removed by the Kerala State Electricity Board after the landlord's rights have vested in the Government as provided under S.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. S.72 provided that all right. title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by landowners and intermediaries. S.72 A provides for the determination of compensation to landlords for vesting of their rights in the Government. S.72 A(1) reads: "Every landowner and intermediary whose right. title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government under S.72 shall be entitled to compensation as provided in sub-ss. (2). (3) and (4)." The landlords are entitled to compensation amount as detailed under S.72A of the Act. S.72 A(1) reads: "Every landowner and intermediary whose right. title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government under S.72 shall be entitled to compensation as provided in sub-ss. (2). (3) and (4)." The landlords are entitled to compensation amount as detailed under S.72A of the Act. S.72A (2) provides that the compensation amount shall be the aggregate of the amount determined under clauses (a). (b) and (c). Sub s. (2) (a) enables the landlord to get sixteen times the fair rent as compensation. Sub-s. (2) (b) relates to the value of structures. wells and embankments of a permanent nature and Sub s. (2) (c) provides for the determination of one-half of the value of timber trees belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries. if any. The proviso makes it clear that the aggregate amount fixed under Sub s. (2) (b) and (c) if it exceeds sixteen times the fair rent in respect of the holding or part thereof. shall be limited to sixteen times the fair rent. The proviso makes the position abundantly clear that with regard to the amount that could be claimed under sub. s. (2) (b) and (c) it cannot exceed sixteen times the fair rent. Thus in a particular case. where the amount due under Sub s. (2) (b) and (c) exceeds sixteen times the fair rent. the landlord can get only the maximum amount under the above heads limited to sixteen times the fait rent. A reading of the Section would clearly show that this is in addition to sixteen times the fair rent as. provided under Subs. (2) (a). Thus the plaintiffs can only get an amount equivalent to sixteen times the fair rent with respect to the trees belonging to them. 3. But it has to be noted that Ext. B-2 order of the Land Tribunal has become final and as Ext. B-2 has fixed the compensation amount confining it to sixteen times the fair rent and cot taking into account the value of the timber trees belonging to the plaintiffs. Their contention that they are entitled to the full value of the trees as fixed by the Electricity Board cannot be allowed. The Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit. I find no reason to interfere. The Second Appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Dismissed.