The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the levy of deficit stamp duty on a fishing rights agreement, holding that a right to catch and carry away fish from a water body constitutes a “profit à prendre” and is a benefit arising out of land. Where such rights are granted for more than one year, the instrument is compulsorily registrable and liable to stamp duty as a lease.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar delivered the judgment in Zaki Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2412 of 2011, on July 15, 2026.
The case concerned a document titled “licence for fishing”, under which Zaki Ullah Khan was granted fishing rights in the Sharda Sagar Jalashya in Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh.
The Collector, Pilibhit, by an order dated March 23, 2006, directed him to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs. 15,72,525, failing which the amount was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The order was subsequently upheld by the Chief Controlling Authority and the Allahabad High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the document was only a fishing licence and not a lease. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Farookh Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh. It was argued that fishing was permitted only for 10 months in a year and, therefore, the licence could not be treated as being for a period exceeding one year.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had obtained the fishing licence after successfully participating in an auction conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd.
Although fishing activities were restricted during the breeding season, the licence itself was granted for three years, against auction amounts of Rs. 38.01 lakh, Rs. 41.81 lakh and Rs. 45.99 lakh for the respective periods.
The Court explained that the restriction on actual fishing activity during the breeding season did not reduce the duration of the licence. Such restrictions had statutory backing under the U.P. Fisheries Act, 1948 and the U.P. Fisheries (Development and Control) Rules, 1954.
The Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Anand Behera v. State of Orissa, where it was held that the right to catch and carry away fish from specified sections of a lake during a specified future period amounts to a profit à prendre.
Such a right is regarded as a benefit arising out of land and therefore constitutes immovable property.
The Court also referred to Santosh Jayaswal v. State of M.P., reiterating that the right to catch fish from a tank is a benefit arising from land and is therefore immovable property for the purposes of stamp duty and registration law.
The Supreme Court held that the fishing right granted to Zaki Ullah Khan was an instrument akin to a lease.
Since the licence was effectively granted for more than one year, it was compulsorily registrable and liable to stamp duty under the relevant provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act.
The Court further clarified that the earlier decision in Farookh Ahmad did not dilute the settled legal position. In that case, the High Court had failed to examine the terms and conditions of the licence. In the present case, the authorities had examined the document and recorded a categorical finding that it was an instrument requiring mandatory registration.
Finding no reason to interfere with the orders of the Collector, Chief Controlling Authority and High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Representation:-
Apellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Adv.* Mr. Chetan Sharma, Adv. M/S. Manoj Swarup And Co., AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Sharvi Sharma, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy