John Woodroffe, J.
1. The decision of the learned district Judge appears to me to be clearly correct. The land must, I think, satisfy the description mentioned in Section 3 of the Forest act (Act VH of 1878); only in that case has the Act any application. Here the Act has no application, because it has been found and, indeed, according to the judgment of the district judge, it is conceded that the land is part or a permanently settled estate. It is then a private property and not the Government property within the meaning of the Forest Act and, therefore, cannot legally be subject of reservation under Chapter II of that Act. So far, there is really ho contention. But it is then argued that as, in point of fact, the rights of the defendants were not shown to be put forward under Section 6 of the Act by way of claim which should have been investigated by the properly constituted authority under Section 7, they must be held to be extinguished under Section 9 of the Act. The clear answer to that argument appears to be that Sections 6, 7 and 9 equally refer to land which is of the description mentioned in Section 3, that is, the proceedings taken in respect of such land. In addition to the case of Balvant Ramchandra v. Secretary of State 29 B. 480 : 7 Bom. L.R. 497 we have been also referred to the case of Haidar Khan v. Secretary of State 1 Ind. Cas. 182 : 36 C. 1 at p. 3 : 8 C.L.J. 436 : 12 C.W.N. 1095 : 35 I.A. 195 (P.C.).
2. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs.
3. I agree.