STATE OF M.P. Vs. SANTOSH JAYASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Madhya Pradesh Rajya Matsya Vikas Nigam Bhpal Published auction notice inviting persons to participate in auction proceedings for gram of Hashing rights and sale of fish in reservoirs under the control of the State Government. After following the procedure as given in the auction notice. the date of auction was fixed at Bargi reservoir in district Jabalpur. The respondent Santosh Jaiswal was the highest bidder with Rs 67 (sic). 101/ - which was knocked down in his labour. He was informed by letter dated 5.8.1993 acceptance of his hid and was required to deposit instalment of security, bank guarantee on or before 16.8.1993 at Head Office. Bhopal. On depositing the said amount, he was required to execute the agreement for grant of fishing rights. He was required to produce the stamp worth Rs. 2, 68. 044/ - . the sum required under Article 35 of Schedule I -A of the Stamp Act at the rate of 4%. The said stamp was duly produced and produced by the respondent and the respondent was given work order. Subsequently, he made a representation to the State, that, he should be exempted from entering into agreement on payment of 4% of stamp duty on the bid amount. The State did not agree to the said request.

(2.) THE respondent filed M. P. No. 4260/93 before this Court. The said miscellaneous petition was allowed by order dated 9.3.1994 by the Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge look the view that fishing right acquired by respondent was in the nature of licence and as such the demand of 4% which was applicable in relation to the lease, was not justified.

(3.) RELYING on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ananda Behra and another vs. State of Orissa and another : A I. R 1956 S. C. 17. it was held that right of fishing is a licence to enter the sheet of water concerned, coupled with a grant to catch and carry away the fish and that it amounts to profit a prendre and was not a lease. Therefore, levy of stamp duly at the rate of 4% was illegal. The submission on behalf of the Revenue was that right to catch and carry away fish for a period of more than one year required a registered instrument and it was an acquisition of right in an immovable property by lease.