The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the 'Satha' as a proprietary sovereign grant, granting a right in perpetuity to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, and the court's emphasis on construing grants made by sovereignty most favorably for the sovereign.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction to the effect that they are permanent lessees of the grass land known as “Ghas Godam Mundkhar” comprised in Khasra Nos. 3 and 4 of the revenue estate No. 252/1, Jangal Jhanjiar Tehsil Ghumarwin and that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the said land and from auctioning the grass of the said land.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that their father late Mian Lekh Ram was granted the aforesaid land by the then ruler of Bilaspur State, Sir Raja Vijay Chand Sahib Bahadur. The grant was made on 19 Sawan 1977 BK and a document known as “Satha” was issued on 23 Sawan, 1977 BK. This “Satha” was duly signed by the then ruler Sh. Vijay Chand. It was conveyed through the said “Satha” that Sh. Lekh Ram aforesaid would be entitled to the grass of the aforesaid forest against an annual rent of Rs.5/-. Mian Lekh Ram continued enjoying the aforesaid right of cutting the grass till his death in the year 1953 and thereafter the plaintiffs are enjoying the said right and are in possession of the land, in question. Mian Lekh Ram had been paying rent of Rs. 5/- per annum regularly to the State Government. Similarly, the plaintiffs continued paying the said rent after the death of their father. However, subsequently, the said rent was enhanced from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 7/- per annum. It is further mentioned that the land is about 100 acres. Previously, this land used to be a demarcated forest under the ownership and possession of late Ruler of Bilaspur, but, subsequently when it was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs, it was taken out of the list of the demarcated forest and was declared as Ghas Godam. Thereafter, Khasra Nos. 3 and 4 was allotted to Mian Lekh Ram and thereafter the plaintiffs continued enjoying the right aforesaid till 1970. It was in 1970 that the State Government decided to put the forest into auction in respect of the grass which is grown in the said land. Having come to know the intention of the Government, the plaintiffs served a notice upon the State Government under Section 80 CPC. Consequently, the auction was stayed and the Government referred the matter for legal opinion of the Law Department. The main question for interpretation and opinion was the “Satha” aforesaid. The Law Department opined that “Satha” in question, was a perpetual and heritable lease and that the plaintiffs had right over the land in dispute. Subsequently, Kuldip Singh Patyal one of the plaintiffs preferred an application on 13.11.1973 to the Collector Ghumarwin for recording the factum of aforesaid lease in the revenue record. The said Collector passed an order on 26.3.1974 and ordered that an entry be made in the revenue record in respect of the said right of the plaintiffs. However, the defendants preferred an appeal against the said order of the Collector. The Commissioner directed the plaintiffs to get the matter settled through the Civil Court. The plaintiffs brought the present suit and also availed of the opportunity of filing an appeal against the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The appeal was pending before the Financial Commissioner, who had granted stay order against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Thereafter, the defendants have been fixing various dates for putting the grass of the forest, in question, to auctioned. The defendant No.4,Shiv Ram Arya, DFO, Bilaspur had fixed the auction of the said land for 4.8.1976 and 28.8.1976 despite the stay order of the Financial Commissioner and it was with the intervention of the Collector concerned that the said auction was not held. It is stated that the defendants have admitted the right of the plaintiffs over the suit land and the defendants are estopped from disputing the right of the plaintiffs over the suit land. As