Fishing rights deed is a lease attracting stamp duty, Supreme Court holds
A two-judge bench held that a three-year fishing licence over Sharda Sagar Jalashya is a profit à prendre lease, upholding a Rs.15.72 lakh deficit stamp duty demand.
A deed granting the right to catch and rear fish from a water body is a lease of immovable property, not a mere licence, and attracts stamp duty as such, the Supreme Court has held. Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the appeal of Zaki Ullah Khan on 15 July 2026, affirming a demand of Rs.15,72,525 in deficit stamp duty.
The Court treated the right to take fish from the Sharda Sagar Jalashya as a profit à prendre—a benefit arising out of land—which is immovable property. Because the deed ran for three years, it was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and chargeable to stamp duty as a lease under Section 2(16) of the Stamp Act, 1899.
How the dispute reached the Court
Khan succeeded in an auction conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. and obtained fishing rights over the Sharda Sagar Jalashya in Pilibhit for the period 5 September 1998 to 30 June 2001. The deed was titled “licence for fishing.”
The Collector, Pilibhit, by order dated 23 March 2006, directed him to pay deficit stamp fee of Rs.15,72,525, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue if not deposited. The Chief Controlling Authority, U.P. at Allahabad, affirmed that order on 6 October 2006. The High Court then upheld the demand, holding that although the deed was styled a licence, it was in substance a lease requiring registration.
The appeal reached the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No.2412/2011.
Parity argument and the duration point
For Khan, Mr. Abhishek Swarup sought parity with a two-judge bench order dated 12 February 2025 in Farookh Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court had set aside a High Court order that treated a similar licence as a lease.
He also argued that permission from the Uttar Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. allowed fishing for only 10 months a year, so the licence could not be treated as issued for a year or more.
The Court rejected the duration argument. It noted that the licence was granted for three years against auction amounts of Rs.38.01 lakh, Rs.41.81 lakh and Rs.45.99 lakh for successive periods. Fishing activity is barred during the breeding season under Section 6(4) and (5) of the Fisheries Act, 1897 and the rules made under it, and under the U.P. Fisheries Act, 1948 read with the U.P. Fisheries (Development and Control) Rules, 1954. That seasonal prohibition, the Court said, is a regulatory suspension with statutory backing and does not shorten the licence period.
Why the right is immovable property
For the State, Mr. Shaurya Sahay relied on Anand Behera v. State of Orissa, Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, Santosh Jayaswal v. State of M.P., Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Meerut Division and a full bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Guddi v. State of U.P.
The Court traced the principle from Anand Behera, where a five-judge bench held that the right to catch and carry away fish over a specified future period is a profit à prendre—a benefit arising out of land and therefore immovable property under the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
It then applied Santosh Jayaswal, which held that where such a right is for more than a year, the instrument is compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act and liable to stamp duty as a lease; where the duration is under a year, it needs stamping but not registration.
On these authorities, the Court held that a right to catch fish in the tank is a profit à prendre, and since the licence — in substance a lease — ran for more than a year, it was compulsorily registrable and liable to stamp duty as a lease instrument. Clause 6 of the deed, it noted, granted specific rights to conduct fishing and take away fish, confirming that the grant was exclusively for fishing.
Farookh Ahmad distinguished
The Court held that Farookh Ahmad did not assist Khan and did not dilute the settled law. In that case, the Court had set aside the High Court order because the High Court had not examined the terms of the licence before deciding whether the document was a lease.
Here, by contrast, the Collector and the CCA had discussed the terms of the document and recorded a finding that it was an instrument requiring registration, being for a value above Rs.100 and for a period exceeding a year. Reading the document as a whole, the Court found, supported the demand.
Order
The Court held that the orders of the Collector, the CCA and the High Court did not call for interference. The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.