Back
Fishing Rights Deed Is , Requires :
The has settled a long-standing dispute over the character of deeds granting fishing rights, holding that such documents constitute leases of immovable property when granted for a term exceeding one year. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed an appeal by Zaki Ullah Khan, who had been ordered to pay Rs.15.72 lakh in deficit for a three-year fishing licence on the Sharda Sagar Jalashya in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh.
The Fishing Licence That Wasn't
In , Khan successfully bid at an auction conducted by the for fishing rights on the reservoir. The deed, styled as a "licence for fishing," was for a period from to , with annual payments totalling over Rs.1.25 crore. However, the licence permitted actual fishing activities for only 10 months each year, as Uttar Pradesh law prohibits fishing during the breeding season (mid-June to September).
When the Collector, Pilibhit, examined the deed, he concluded that it was not a mere licence but a . Under , any for a term exceeding one year and valued at more than Rs.100 must be registered and bear appropriate . The Collector demanded Rs.15,72,525 in deficit , a decision later affirmed by the and the .
A Distinction Without a Difference
Khan argued that because fishing was only permitted for 10 months each year, the licence could not be considered to have been issued for more than one year, thus escaping the registration requirement. He also sought parity with the 's recent order in , where a similar fishing licence was set aside.
The State countered by invoking the concept of — a right to take something from another's land. Citing a five-judge bench decision in Anand Behera v. State of Orissa (), the State argued that the right to catch and carry away fish is a benefit arising out of land, making it immovable property under the . Once classified as immovable property, a grant exceeding one year becomes a compulsorily registrable lease.
: The Key Principle
The sided with the State, drawing a crucial line between the licence to fish and the permission to carry out fishing activities. The court observed that the 10-month restriction was a statutory prohibition during breeding season, not a reduction in the licence period.
"Prohibition of fishing for a particular period has thus statutory backing. However, that by itself would not convert the licence for a period less than one year,"the bench noted.
The court then applied the settled law on :
"When the right is given to a person to catch fish in the tank, it is attached to, or a benefit to arise out of the land. Therefore, it is an instrument for the purpose of and since the duration of the licence, which is in fact a lease, is for more than a year, it is and liable to as an ."
The court distinguished Farookh Ahmad on the ground that in that case, the High Court had not examined the terms of the document, whereas here, the authorities had properly analysed the deed's clauses.
Implications for Similar Deeds
The ruling clarifies that any document conveying fishing, mining, or similar rights that constitute a for a period exceeding one year will be treated as a lease. This has significant implications for state fisheries departments, auction participants, and authorities across India. The appeal was dismissed, and Khan remains liable for the deficit .
