Zaki Ullah Khan v. State of U.P. & Others, 2026

The appellant, Zaki Ullah Khan, obtained fishing rights in Sharda Sagar Jalashya, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh.

The document granting the fishing rights was described as a licence for fishing.

The fishing rights were granted for approximately three years, from 1998 to 2001.

The authorities treated the document as an instrument having the character of a lease, rather than merely a temporary permission to fish.

The Collector, Pilibhit directed the appellant to pay deficit stamp duty of ₹15,72,525.

The authorities also considered the document to be compulsorily registrable because the fishing rights had been granted for a period exceeding one year.

The appellant challenged the demand before the appropriate authorities and subsequently before the Allahabad High Court.

The High Court upheld the decision requiring payment of the deficit stamp duty.

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the document was only a fishing licence and should not attract the registration and stamp-duty requirements applicable to a lease.

The appellant further argued that fishing was permitted only for 10 months in each year because of restrictions imposed during the breeding season.

According to the appellant, this meant that the effective duration of the fishing permission was less than one year.

The State contended that the right to catch and carry away fish constituted profit à prendre, namely a benefit arising out of land.

The State therefore argued that the fishing right constituted an interest in immovable property for the purposes of stamp duty and registration.

The Supreme Court examined whether the fishing right amounted to profit à prendre and whether the three-year grant was compulsorily registrable.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court.

The Court held that the right to catch and carry away fish from a tank or water body constitutes profit à prendre.

Profit à prendre is a benefit arising out of land and therefore falls within the concept of immovable property for the relevant statutory purposes.

The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Anand Behera v. State of Orissa, which recognised fishing rights as profit à prendre.

Although the document was described as a licence, its substance and duration showed that it operated as an instrument in the nature of a lease.

Since the fishing rights were granted for more than one year, the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court rejected the argument that fishing being permitted for only 10 months annually reduced the duration of the licence.

The restriction was imposed under the U.P. Fisheries Act and Rules for regulatory purposes, particularly during breeding seasons.

Such a statutory restriction regulated the exercise of the fishing right but did not reduce the contractual duration of the grant.

The appellant was consequently liable to pay the appropriate stamp duty, including the deficit amount determined by the authorities.

The key legal concept in the case is profit à prendre, meaning a right to take some benefit or produce from another person's land.

The Court considered the right to catch and remove fish from the water body to be a direct benefit arising from that property.

Consequently, the fishing right acquired the character of immovable property for stamp-duty and registration purposes.

The judgment demonstrates that the name or label of an instrument is not conclusive in determining its legal character.

A document described as a licence can, depending upon its terms and substance, operate as a lease or an interest in immovable property.

The duration of the grant was crucial because it extended beyond the statutory one-year threshold.

The Court made an important distinction between the duration of the right and the period during which the right could actually be exercised.

The 10-month fishing restriction was a statutory regulatory measure and did not terminate or reduce the three-year grant.

The judgment reinforces the principle of substance over nomenclature in determining the legal nature of an instrument.

The decision reaffirmed the importance of Anand Behera v. State of Orissa in determining the legal character of fishing rights.

The ruling is relevant to government fisheries contracts, water-body leases, fishing auctions, stamp-duty assessment and registration of property-related instruments.

It also highlights that parties cannot avoid stamp duty and registration requirements merely by describing a long-term property-related right as a “licence.”