D. P. MOHAPATRA, CJ.

( 1 ) ON a reference made by a learned single Judge to place the matter before a larger Bench to decide the controversy, this case has been placed before us for deciding the questions formulated in the reference order. The following questions have been formulated for decision:"1. Whether three Judges Special Bench decision in Board of Revenue v. Mulkhraj 1984 All LJ 321 (SB) has correctly construed the Supreme Court decisions, in Anand Bahera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 17 and in Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. B. D. Dey and Company. AIR 1979 SC 1669?2. Whether the right, created under the instrument in question, of catching the fish, in favour of the petitioner from Pachaura Tank reservoir for a period of five years on payment of premium is a lease within the meaning of Section 2 (16) of the Act, chargeable to stamp duty in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule 1-B of the Stamp Act in the light of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to hereinbefore or it is a licence chargeable to stamp duty under Article 5 (c) of Schedule 1-B of the Act as held by the Three judge Special Bench of this Court in. Board of Revenue v. Mulakhraj (supra)?

( 2 ) THE fact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document