JUDGMENT John Wallis, C.J. 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State in Council to establish his title to, and to recover possession of certain lands in the village of Putlampalli, which in the year 190S were declared to be reserved forest by notification under Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act and have since bean in the possession of Government, The plaint alleges that the declaration and taking possession were illegal and ultra vires, because the Forest Settlement Officer did not give notice to the plaintiff or his agent as is required by Section 6 of the Act before proceeding to constitute the lands a Reserved Forest. The plaintiff gave evidence that he was never served with notice, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the District Judge found that this was so, and this finding has not been seriously contested. He inferred however from Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the plaintiff was presumably aware that the suit lands were being included in the reserved forest nearly a year before the publication of final notification under Section 16 and held that as the plaintiff did not avail himself of his right under Section 17 to satisfy the Forest Settlement Officer, if he could, before the publication of the notification that he had sufficient cause for not preferring his claim within the period prescribed for the submission of the claims in the notices issued in the year 1895 and so secure an investigation of his claim, the irregularity was cured and did not prevent the plaintiff being barred under that section. No authority has been cited before us in support of this view and I am unable to accept it. Under the Act the Forest Settlement Officer is constituted a Court for the decision of claims to lands which it is proposed to include in a reserved forest as between Government and the claimant, and in the event of the claim being allowed he is required under Section 10 if no arrangement is come to with the claimant either to exclude the land in question from the proposed forest or to acquire it for Government under the Land Acquisition Act. Under Section 6 he is required besides publishing notices calling for claims at the headquarters of each taluk in which any part of the land is situated and at every town and village in the neighbourhood of such land to serve special notice to the same effect on every known or reputed owner or occupier of any land included in or adjoining the land proposed to be constituted a reserved forest or his agent or manager; and it is not disputed that the plaintiff as the registered inamdar of the village in which the suit land was situated should have received notice under this section. It should also be stated that there is no evidence that the steps which were being taken under the Act came to the knowledge of the plaintiff until more than five years after the issue of the proclamation under Section 6. In these circumstances, it is, I think, clear that the Forest Settlement Officer in the absence of the notice required by the section had no jurisdiction to make any decision affecting the right of the plaintiff. Numerous cases might be cited in support of this position, but it is sufficient to cite the decisions of their Lordships in NusserwanJee Pestonjee v. Meer Meynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Bahadoor (1855) 6 M.I.A. 134 at. p. 155 and Saunby v. London (Ont) Water Commissioners (1906) A.C. 110. In the latter it was held by their Lordships that the statutory Commissioners having proceeded without serving the notice required by the Act the appellant had not lost his ordinary right of action for the trespass on his property. Reference may also be made to the forcible language of Lord Macnaghten in Herron v. Rathmines and Rathgar Improvement Commissioners (1892) A.C. 498 at p. 523 and to Rameswar Singh v. Secretary of State for India (1907) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 470.