Judgment :- Balakrishna Eradi, J. After hearing Counsel appearing on both sides we do cot find any merit in this appeal and the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The sole question raised before us in the appeal concerns the interpretation of S. 7D of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963-Act 1 of 1964-as amended by Act 35 of 1969. That section reads 7D. Certain persons occupying private forests or unsurveyed lands to be deemed tenants. - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in S.52 or any other provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, or any other law, or in any contract, custom or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, any person in occupation at the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969, of the land of another situated in Malabar, to which the provisions of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 (XXVII of 1949), were applicable on the 11th day of April, 1955 or which was unsurveyed on that date, shall be deemed to be a tenant if he or his predecessor-in-interest was continuously in occupation of such land for not less than two years within a period of twelve years immediately preceding the 11th day of April, 1967." 3. The High Court has taken the view that the benefit of the above section would apply only to persons whose occupation of the private forests or unsurveyed lands had a lawful origin and not to persons in unlawful occupation based on trespass or forcible and unlawful entry. We are of opinion that the said interpretation placed by the High Court on the section is perfectly correct. 4. For a proper understanding of the scope and intendment of S. 7D, it is necessary to examine the setting and the context in which the said section occurs in the Act. This will require a conjoint study of the provisions contained in Ss. 7A to 7C and Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act which immediately precede and succeed S. 7D. Those sections are in the following terms: (Sections omitted) 5. This will require a conjoint study of the provisions contained in Ss. 7A to 7C and Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act which immediately precede and succeed S. 7D. Those sections are in the following terms: (Sections omitted) 5. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes abundantly clear that the intention of the legislature was to grant protection only to persons whose possession had a lawful origin in the sense that they had either bonafide believed the lands to be Government's lands of which they could later seek assignment or had taken the lands on lease from persons whom they bonafide believed to be competent to grant such leases or had come into possession with the intention of attorning to the lawful owners or on the basis of arrangements like varam etc., which were only in the nature of licences and fell short of a leasehold right. It was not within the contemplation of the legislature to confer the benefit of protection on persons who had wilfully trespassed upon lands belonging to others and whose occupation was unlawful in its origin. The expression "in occupation" occurring in S. 7D must be construed as meaning "in lawful occupation". 6. In the present case the finding of fact entered by the High Court is that the appellant had come into possession of the lands by trespass. His plea before the Courts below was that he was himself the owner of the area having acquired title to it by adverse possession. In such circumstances the High Court was in our opinion fully justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of S. 7D. The appeal is, therefore, devoid of merits. 7. Shri P. S. Poti, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has very fairly submitted before us that his clients are prepared to pay to toe appellant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as ex¬gratia payment in full and final settlement of whatever claims the appellant may have towards the value of the rubber trees standing in plots A, B and C or in any other respect. We record this submission and direct that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as ex¬gratia payment in full and final settlement of whatever claims the appellant may have towards the value of the rubber trees standing in plots A, B and C or in any other respect. We record this submission and direct that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited by the respondents in the trial Court within a period of three months from today, whereupon the appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the said amount from Court without furnishing any security. 8. Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal and the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs. The amounts deposited in the trial court by the Receiver may be withdrawn by the respondents herein. Dismissed.