Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 15-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Zaki Ullah Khan; Respondents – State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil appeal (No.2412/2011) challenging the liability to pay stamp duty on a fishing‑rights deed.
  • Background: The appellant obtained a licence for fishing in Sharda Sagar Jalashya, Pilibhit, through an auction conducted by Uttar Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd. The licence covered three consecutive years (01‑09‑1998 to 30‑06‑2001) with auction payments of Rs 38.01 Lakhs (1998‑99), Rs 41.81 Lakhs (1999‑2000) and Rs 45.99 Lakhs (2000‑01).
  • Dispute: The Collector, Pilibhit, on 23‑03‑2006 directed the appellant to pay a deficit stamp fee of Rs 15,72,525, treating the licence as a lease of immovable property under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 2(16) of the Stamp Act, 1899. This order was affirmed by the Chief Controlling Authority (CCA) on 06‑10‑2006 and subsequently upheld by the High Court.
  • Appellant’s Arguments: Cited the Supreme Court’s 12‑02‑2025 decision in Farookh Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh seeking parity, contended that the licence did not grant permission for a full year (fishing allowed only 10 months per year by Uttar Pradesh Matsya Vikas Nigam Ltd.), and argued that the document should be treated as a licence, not a lease.
  • Respondent’s Arguments: Relied on precedents – Anand Behera v. State of Orissa (1955), Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fisherman Co‑op Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh (1977), Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (2025), Santosh Jayaswal v. State of M.P. (1995), and the Allahabad High Court judgment in Guddi v. State of U.P. – to assert that the right to catch fish is a profit à prendre, a benefit arising out of land, thus immovable property liable to stamp duty as a lease.
  • Statutory Framework Cited:
  • Section 6(4) & (5) of the Fisheries Act, 1897 – restricts fishing during breeding season.
  • U.P. Fisheries Act, 1948 – empowers the State Government to frame rules on fishing licences and seasonal prohibitions.
  • U.P. Fisheries (Development and Control) Rules, 1954 – specifies prohibited periods (e.g., July 15 to Sept 30 for fry, June 15 to July 30 for breeding fish) unless a licence is obtained.
  • Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 – mandates registration of leases exceeding one year or valued over Rs 100.
  • Section 2(16) of the Stamp Act, 1899 – defines stamp duty applicability.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The licence, though termed a “licence for fishing,” was granted for a three‑year term and conferred exclusive rights to catch and remove fish, which the Court held to be a profit à prendre – a benefit arising out of land and therefore immovable property.
  • Citing Anand Behera and Santosh Jayaswal, the Court reiterated that such rights are subject to compulsory registration and stamp duty when the value exceeds Rs 100 and the term exceeds one year.
  • The Court distinguished Farookh Ahmad on the ground that the present case involved a detailed examination of the deed’s terms, leading to a categorical finding of a lease‑like instrument.
  • Since the deed’s value (auction payments totalling over Rs 1.25 crore) far exceeds the Rs 100 threshold and the duration exceeds one year, the stamp duty of Rs 15,72,525 is lawful.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Collector’s and CCA’s orders, and affirmed the liability to pay Rs 15,72,525 stamp duty.
  • No interference with the High Court’s judgment was ordered; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Topics: Stamp Duty, Fisheries Lease