JUDGMENT Mootham, C.J. - This appeal raises the question of the meaning of the word 'mahal' as used in a sanad granted in the year 1781. In that year Warren Hastings granted a Sanad to Bundoo Khan, the predecessor in title of Respondents Nos. 1 to 6. The original sanad which was in Persian has not been produce, but it is agreed that the following is a correct translation of it. 2. Be it known unto the Mutsaddin and Amirs of the country, present and future, zamindars chowdries Ryats and other inhabitants of the Pargana and sircar of Chunar in the Subha of Allahabad. Whereas the good services of Bundoo Khan towards the Company have been manifested and regarding his right to the village Jalal pur in the above Pargana, it is granted unto him as an Ultamgha Jagheer (as specified on the back) with the Mahal and custom and whole jurisdiction (with the exception of Deater, Brahmater, Kishna...Khanabaree, Mehtoorai, Peerai, Tukkeeri and accustomary excused charity Sanads excluded from the Jumna) from the commencement of the Kharif season 1189 Fussalee in order that he may be everready with his services. The receipts of the Jagheer before mentioned to be applied for his necessary expenses and those of his children, it is proper that he should provide effectively for the requisites of the jagheer Village and no one particle of behaving in an approved manner towards the Roy (sic) and ill the Inhabitants of the aforesaid village. He will keep them contended and satisfied and he must also exert his utmost endeavours towards its population and improvement--he disturb the Charity lands abovementioned which are struck out of the, Jumna his conduct to be this to consider the aforesaid Bundoo as confirmed Jageerdar of the said village and having appeared in his person to carry on the revenue business honestly--by no manner or means to create delay nor demand a renewal of the Sanad consider this as peremptory and act according to the above instructions. 3. Particulars of the back in the same words as before used-- Names of the villages Jalalpur ... ... ... 1 Majeedpore ... ... ... 1 Kasapore ... ... ... 1 Mujeear ... ... ... 1 4 The Mahal of the Sultanpur Ferry. 4. The present dispute relates to the Sultanpur Ferry which, it is common ground, was owned by these Respondents on the 1st July, 1952. ... ... 1 Majeedpore ... ... ... 1 Kasapore ... ... ... 1 Mujeear ... ... ... 1 4 The Mahal of the Sultanpur Ferry. 4. The present dispute relates to the Sultanpur Ferry which, it is common ground, was owned by these Respondents on the 1st July, 1952. On that date a notification was issued u/s 4 of the UPZA and LR Act of declaring that all 'estates' as defined in that Act shall vest in the State. Thereafter, by an order dated the 24th November, 1955, the sub-Divisional Officer, Chunar directed the President of the Land Management Committee of village Jalalpur Muafi to take immediate possession of the. Ferry. These Respondents then filed a petition in this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution in which they challenged the validity of the Sub Divisional Officer's order and prayed that it be quashed by a writ of cartiorari. Mr. Justice Mukerji by the order which is the subject of the present appeal allowed the petition and directed that the impugned order be quashed. 5. The argument on behalf of the Appellants is that the grant by Warren Hastings of "The Mahal of the Sultanpur Feiry" necessarily included the grant of land at one or both of the terminal points of the Ferry and that the Ferry therefore Jell within the definition of "estate" and on the 1st July, 1952, vested in the State. There is ho evidence that the Respondents were ever recorded as the zamindars of any land appurtenant to this Ferry and the question is entirely one of the meaning which must be given to the sentence 'The Mahal of the Suhanpur Ferry' as used in the Sanad. 6. Reliance is placed by the Appellants on the definition of the word 'mahal' in the UP Land Revenue Act of 1901 where it is defined as any local area held under a separate engagement for the payment of land revenue. That is a definition for the purpose of a particular Act and we do not think that it is a safe guide to the meaning to the word 'Mahal' in a document of 1781. The word 'Mahal' is considered by H.H. Wilson in his authoritative Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms of British India which was published in 1855. That is a definition for the purpose of a particular Act and we do not think that it is a safe guide to the meaning to the word 'Mahal' in a document of 1781. The word 'Mahal' is considered by H.H. Wilson in his authoritative Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms of British India which was published in 1855. The author says: In the language of the Regulations a Mahal, or Mehal is called an estate and is defined, any parcel or parcels of land which may be separately assessed with the public revenue; the whole property of the revenue payers in the mehal being held hypothecated to government for the sum assessed upon it.... Under the Mohammadan government the term was also applied to a head or department of miscellaneous revenue derived from a tax on some particular class of things or persons as, Mahal Kaghaz the tax or duty on paper; (sic) Mahal, the duty on fish; Nimak Mahal the revenue derived from the monopoly or the sale of salt--In some places a certain right is intended, capable of being rented, as the Mommahal, or right to the wax found in the forests of a given tract. 7. Our attention has not been invited to any other definition which is of assistance. The word 'mahal' is one which, we think is capable of being used in more than one sense and although it appears that in recent times it is ordinarily used as referring to a local area the earlier meaning of a franchise or tax is not obsolete; in Dhanpat Pandey and Ors. v. Pasput Pratap Singh 1931 ALJ 424 a Division Bench of this Court in 1931 referred to the fact that certain ferries had been formed into a mahal styled as the Jalkar mahal. 8. In our opinion 'mahal' is not used in the Sanad as a word meaning or necessarily including landed property--The grant, first is of four named villages "With the Mahal and Custom and whole jurisdiction" subject to certain exceptions. The use of the word 'mahal' in this context implies that in addition to the villages the grant is also of certain rights attached to or arising therefrom and we can see no sufficient reason why a radically different meaning should be given to the same word later in the document. The use of the word 'mahal' in this context implies that in addition to the villages the grant is also of certain rights attached to or arising therefrom and we can see no sufficient reason why a radically different meaning should be given to the same word later in the document. In our judgment the grant of "The Mahal of the "Sultanpur Ferry" meant, as the learned Judge has held, the grant only of the right to operate the ferry and to appropriate the revenue arising therefrom. It is well settled and has not been disputed that the franchise of a ferry is not necessarily appurtenant to land and that the owner of a feery need not be owner of the landing places of the ferry. 9. We are of opinion that this appeal must fail. It is dismissed with costs