JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 10869 of 2019 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 11.03.2020, whereby the writ petition was allowed and held as follows at paragraphs 11 to 13:

“11. The term compensation has to be given normal meaning. One would be entitled to timber value as well as produce value as compensation in normal circumstances. In the contract if nothing indicates as to the contrary, such a compensation cannot be denied to the owner of the land. In regard to rubber trees after the age of yield is over, one would get timber value.

12. On interpretation of the agreement, this Court find as per the Government Order, that the petitioners are entitled for both the timber value as well as the annual produce value of the timber, on a conjoined reading of Clause 7.7 and Clause 2C in the Annexure II. In such circumstances, the writ petition has to be allowed.

13. The petitioners should be given the timber value as originally calculated. The annual produce value of the trees will have to be re-wor