SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
S. Seenichami - Appellant
Versus
The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Rajapalayam - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 154 of 2022, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 120, 121 of 2022
Decided On : 04-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R.J. Karthick
For the Respondent: S. Kameshwaran

Ownership of fishery rights, acquired through historical court auction, cannot be negated by new government orders; such rights are classified as profit a prendre and treated as immovable property.

Headnote:(A) Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.16, Public Works Department, dated 14.01.2011 - Rights and ownership of fishery rights - The writ petition challenges the auction notice concerning fishery rights over Periyur Periyakulam tank, based on historical court auction rights. The petitioner contends ownership through inheritance, supported by a sale certificate. The court finds the government order inapplicable to the case, emphasizing the immovable nature of fishery rights and the importance of historical acquisition. (Paras 2, 6, 13)

(B) Profit a Prendre - Definition recognized - The court reiterates that fishery rights, classified as profit a prendre, are considered immovable property for legal purposes. The right to catch fish is inseparable from land, ensuring protective ownership. (Paras 8, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, president of the Water Users Association, has inherited fishery rights from his grandfather, who purchased rights in 1942. The state seeks to auction these rights, conflicting with the historical ownership.

Findings of Court:
The auction notice dated 21.12.2021 is quashed as the government order does not apply. Petitioner’s longstanding ownership is upheld.

Issues: The court addresses the legality of the auction notice in light of historical ownership and government authority, along with the implications of fishery rights categorized as profit a prendre.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that historical acquisition through the district court's auction grants the petitioner rights over the fishery that cannot be undermined by newer government directives.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to public auction notice based on historical rights. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the applicability of the government order. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on the nature of fishery rights and applicable law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final ruling protecting petitioner's rights. (Para 14)

ORDER :

1. Challenging the impugned Fishery Public Auction notice in Na.Ka.No:Ko23(4)/U.Po.(Sa)/2021, dated 21.12.2021, issued by the 2nd respondent with regard to Serial Number 6, Periyur Periya Kanmoi situated in Periyur Village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi District, this Writ Petition has been filed.

2. A tank, named, Periyur Periya Kanmoi is situated in Survey Nos. 805 and 806, Periyur village, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tenkasi district and the writ petitioner is the president of Periyur Periyakulam Water Users Association. On 21.07.1942, the writ petitioner's grandfather, namely, Mr.Vellaiyathevar participated in the auction conducted by the learned District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, in O.S.No.47 of 1937 and purchased the fishery right of the said tank. On 31.08.1942, the sale certificate was also issued, declaring the writ petitioner's grandfather as certified auction purchaser, since then his father was in possession of the tank and he was doing fishing activities. Fishery patta No.1 and other revenue records were mutated in favor of the petitioner's father and he was paying taxes in his name. After his demise, the writ petitioner had survived him and had mutated the fishery right of the aforesaid tank and the fishery patta in his favor and is continuing to do fishing activities. During the period from 2011 and 2015, the respondents were taking steps to bring the said tank for public auction. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents along with relevant documents, not to take any hasty steps in this regard, by bringing the aforesaid tank for public auction. On perusal of the documents submitted by the writ petitioner, the respondents dropped their action to conduct public auction with respect to the aforesaid tank. Even for the present year, the writ petitioner has let in fishlings. However, to his shock and surprise, the respondents are taking steps to bring the aforesaid tank, that is, the Periyur Periyakulam tank for public auction. Hence, once again on 03.12.2021, the petitioner gave a representation to the respondents, requesting not to bring the Periyur Periyakulam tank for public auction. However, even without issuance of notice or cancelling the petitioner's fishing patta, the public auction notice came to be issued by the second respondent vide impugned fishery public auction notice in Na.Ka.No.Ko23(4)/U.Po. (Sa)/2021, dated 21.12.2021 and the said Periyur Periyakulam tank was brought for public auction. Challenging the same, this petition is filed

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the strength of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.16, Public Work (W2) Department, dated 14.01.2011, the respondents have issued the impugned notice, by bringing the Periyur Periyakulam for public auction. However, the aforesaid Government Order will not cover the case of the tank in question. G.O.Ms.No.16, Public Works Department, dated 14.01.2011, deals with those tanks under the Water Resources Organization. However, the Periyur Periyakulam tank had never ever been under the Water Resources Organization and the said tank was the subject matter of a civil suit in O.S.No.47 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif Court, at Tenkasi and the fishery right of the Periyur Periyakulam was purchased in the Court auction by the petitioner's grandfather, namely, Thiru. Vellaiyathevar, in whose favor a sale auction certificate has also been issued by the said Court by sale certificate dated 31.08.1942, on the basis of which, a Fishery Patta No.1 was issued in favor of the petitioner's father and after his demise, the same has been mutated in favor of the petiti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top