I think it's probably unlikely for various reasons...
It looks like it's possibly painted in acrylic.
The strokes are fairly repetitive, and look more like someone imitating his style - which is common, I've imitated the masters myself because it's a great way to learn different techniques.
Often certain areas of his paintings would be almost illustrative (due to his background I presume) in that the some items would look outlined or almost drawn by the brush. This meant that certain subjects pop out. He was particularly fond of doing this to shrubs, trees, grass, and people - its missing here, although it's by no means in all his paintings. In this painting, nothing pops or has that same detailing. The leaves in forefront look haphazard & almost on the stalks, and the red area looks like a band of red with strokes floating in it. I feel he probably would have gone to town with these areas. The trees too, I feel, would have much more detail and depth.
The colours don't match those in his palette, and they seem less mixed/more from the tube. Although obviously not all his paintings contain the oranges/yellows or blues he loved.
The canvas is an unusual shape for him.
The sky looks like the person was going for something along the lines of the two cypress tree painting, or slightly starry night. In reality most of his skies were quite different from each other, and he rarely included so little sky - but when he did they tended to be fairly plain.
It's a lovely painting, I hope you don't take any of my comments negatively. I'd certainly hang it in my wall. It's worth checking for a signature to make sure, you never know... but my "guess" is that it isn't.
Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk