Judgment :- Revision petitioner claims that he is entitled to half the value of 17 coconut trees in the property. These coconut trees have been valued by the Commissioner at Rs.11,988/-. Contention of the revision petitioner is that he is entitled to half the value of the timber trees as provided under S.72A(2)(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. Respondents contended that coconut trees is not a timber tree and so revision petitioner is not entitled to any amount. 3. Whether coconut tree is a timber tree is the point that arises for consideration. under S.72a(2)(c)a land owner is entitled to one-half of the value of timber trees belonging to him. Timber tree is defined under S.2(58) of the Act. "Timber tree" means trees, the yield or income from which has not to be taken into account for the determination of fair rent. Under S.2(13) "fair rent" means the rent payable by a cultivating tenant under S.27 or S.33. S.27(2)(b) provides that in the case of other lands, the fair rent shall be 75 per cent of the contract rent or the fair rent determined under any law in force immediately before 21st January, 1961 or the rent calculated at the rates specified in Schedule III applicable to the class of lands comprised in the holding, whichever is less. Under Schedule III income from the coconut trees will have to be reckoned. As income from the coconut trees has to be taken into account for fixation of fair rent, it cannot be considered as a timber tree. Coconut tree is not a timber tree as defined under the Act. Therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to any value of the coconut trees. 4. Still on another ground revision petitioner cannot succeed. Proviso to S.72A makes the position clear that the compensation under S.72A is limited to sixteen times the fair rent. Thus, in a case where value of the timber trees, structures, wells and embankments exceeds sixteen times the fair rent the landlord is not entitled to that actual amount. fixes the outer limit of the compensation due to the landlord under the above heads. Whatever be the actual amount of compensation, the landlord is not entitled to get it as he is only entitled to sixteen times the fair rent. There is no merit in the C.R.P. The C.R.P. is dismissed with no order as to costs.