Astitva Kumar Rao is a third-year BA LLB (Hons.) student at Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat, Haryana. Read More
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANAND BEHERA VS STATE OF ORISSA
PETITIONER – ANANDA BEHERA & ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT – THE STATE OF ORISSA & ANOTHER
- CITATION – (1955) 2 SCR 919 / AIR 1956 SC 17
- DATE OF JUDGMENT – OCTOBER 27, 1955
- HON’BLE JUDGES – (BEFORE S.R. DAS, A.C.J. AND VIVIAN BOSE, B. JAGANNADHADAS, SYED JAFER IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.)
INTRODUCTION
“Benefits to arise out of the land” falls within the category of immovable property because it refers to a land interest. It is specifically stated that this term falls under the category of immovable property in the Registration Act, 1908, Section 2(6). Rent from the home, income from farming, rent from stores and jagir, the ability to capture fish from ponds or rivers, and the ability to gather lac from trees are a few examples of advantages that come with land. In addition, there are other rights such as the interest on income from immovable property, the ability to lease land, and the right to collect fees from the market or fair located on a plot of ground. Even the right to extract minerals, the right to display a portion of land, the right to take possession of the land, the right of the priest to recoup expenses from the burial, the management of Sarjan land, the mortgagee’s interest in the mortgaged property, and so on are all deemed to be immovable property. In this case, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the right to access land and remove fish from a pond is known as “A profits a prendre,” or the right to take something from another person’s property. It’s covered by the definition of immovable property under the heading of benefits derived from land.
FACTS
The plaintiff had obtained an oral licence to fish in particular parts of Chilka Lake from its former landlord, Raja of Parikud. The plaintiff ran a company that fished Chilka Lake’s fishery, harvesting fish to sell. The plaintiff paid the Raja of Parikud hefty sums of money in exchange for a fishing licence, and they have the paperwork for that payment. There were four portions of the lake that the petitioner had access to with a fishing licence. The Orissa Estates Abolition Act was passed in 1951, and on September 24, 1953, the State of Orissa received ownership of the property previously held by the Raja of Parikud, as per Orissa Act I of 1952. Although the permits were secured by the Plaintiff before the State of Orissa gained ownership of the land, they were only valid for future years beginning after the State of Orissa took control of the land. The Plaintiff filed a petition against the State of Orissa using Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) as well as the “sale of future goods” since he was barred from Chilka Lake fishery. The property where Chika Lake was located was off-limits to Plaintiff’s access by the State of Orissa.
ISSUES
- Whether the Plaintiff’s claim over the fisheries under the “Sale of Goods Act” is a valid claim or not.
- Whether the fish right can be claimed as per Fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) as per the oral contract he entered with the ex-proprietor.
- Whether fishing in the lake is considered “Profit A Prendre” and as a part of Immovable property.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
They applied in the court citing his fundamental rights over the land that the government had acquired, his right to property under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) (Repealed in the 44th Amendment, 1978), and his ability to enter the land to conduct business under the “Sales of Future Goods” section of the “Sales of Goods Act.”
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The permits that were received were not acknowledged by them since the agreement between the Plaintiff and the previous proprietor Raja of Parikund was for “Future years,” which were dates that came after the State of Orissa acquired land.
COURT’S REASONING
Profit A Prendre is defined as the right to enter someone’s land and use “benefits arising out of the land” for business purposes under the “Sale” or transfer of ownership defined under the “Transfer of Property Act, 1882.” The petitioner’s claim under Article 32 is inappropriate because it does not pertain to the State of Orissa and was made solely based on a personal contract with the ex-proprietor. The petitioner did not wait until the contract was set to expire to assert his or her rights under Article 32. It is considered a personal right under the terms of the contract and The State of Orissa is not accountable for it because the agreement was made per the “Sales of Goods Act” with the prior owner. It is not a violation of fundamental rights to refuse to fish on the lands that the state has acquired; rather, it is a breach of contract, for which the prior owner has responsibility rather than the State of Orissa. As a result, it was noted that this matter should not be approached in that manner. To exercise your rights, you must adhere to the legal requirements. Plaintiff in this instance ought to have recorded the “Transfer of Ownership” or “Sale” to be entitled to access to the land. The Orissa Estate Abolition Act’s specifics, however, must be investigated to determine the rights of the property’s encumbrance parties and former owners.
PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
Benefits derived from land are included in the definition of “immovable property” under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act. The only definition of immovable property provided by the Transfer of Property Act is that it does not include grass, growing crops, or standing timber. Since fish do not fall under that category, the General Clauses Act’s definition is applicable. Additionally, since a profit a prendre is considered a benefit derived from land, it is considered immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act. These days, a “sale” is defined as the transfer of ownership for a sum of money that is pledged or paid. Because a profit a prendre is immovable property and was acquired for a price that was paid, section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act mandates that it be registered and put in writing. Should a profit à prendre be considered tangible immovable property, then the “property” in question has a value of more than Rs. 100.
Regardless of value, a registered instrument would be required if it is intangible. In this instance, there was no written contract or registration the “sales” were verbal only. Because of this, the petitioners lack a fundamental right that they can pursue because the transactions transmitted no title or interest.
It is necessary to advert to Firm Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel & Co. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.[1] And explain it because it was held there that a right to “pluck, collect and carry away” tendu leaves does not give the owner of the right any proprietary interest in the land and so that sort of right was not an “encumbrance” within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. But the contract there was to “pluck, collect and carry away” the leaves. The only kind of leaves that can be “plucked” are those that are growing on trees and there must be a fresh crop of leaves at periodic intervals. That would make it a growing crop and a growing crop is expressly exempted from the definition of “immovable property” in the Transfer of Property Act. That case is distinguishable and does not apply here.
JUDGEMENT
According to Section 3(26) of the General Clause Act, the Court determined that Chilika Lake is “immovable property” and that fisheries are “benefits arising out of land.” One can alternatively consider the privilege to enter the land and engage in commercial fishing as “Benefits arising out of the land” or “Profit a prendre“. Since fisheries are regarded as “tangible immovable property” in this instance, the sale of the property should be recorded per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act since the property has a value of more than Rs. 100. The petitioner lacks a fundamental right over the property because he did not register the contract under Section 54 of the TP Act and it was only an oral agreement. Since the “State of Orissa” did not assume ownership of the contract, the property right is thus void per Articles 19(1) and 31(1). The owner had complete authority to prevent anyone from accessing their land and to “right to regulate” rules according to their discretion because the entire right and ownership vested in the interest of the State of Orissa and because fish fall under “Benefits arising out of the land” as per Section 3 of General Clause Act under Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
ANALYSIS
If the government enacts a land acquisition law, such as the Abolition of Estate Act, it must also include protections or remedies for those who operate companies on the acquired land. They cannot have their rights violated, especially when they can be the family’s only wage earners. Based on the receipt he had for the amount of money he paid to run the business, even though the petitioner, in this case, did not register his sale or transfer of ownership under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, he could have been directed to obtain the compensation from The State of Orissa or the previous owner. The State of Orissa is not liable for the previous agreement made by the ex-proprietor since there was no formal contract between them and no registration of the sale of property valued at more than Rs. 100 due to the nature of the business being “tangible Immovable property” under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner’s approach was based on “Sales of future goods” and the dates of interest in the matter were after the government acquired the property. Therefore, The State of Orissa owns the stake in the land and its regulations. I would agree with the Honourable Court’s ruling in this matter since the law of the land or its legal requirements take precedence over any other interests.
CONCLUSION
Due to the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, it is extensively debated on the breadth of its rights over the property under “Profit à prendre” and how it is handled in court. Section 54 of the TP Act requires that any sale or transfer of such property be properly registered. In cases like this, which primarily centre on government land acquisition, the petitioners have no claim over their prior agreement with the ex-owner unless they have complied with all legal requirements. This case sheds light on the rights attached to movable property under the Transfer of Property Act of 1882.
REFERENCES
- Hariharan Kumar, Understanding the term ‘Benefits to arise out of land’, Academike (Nov. 16, 2015), https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/understanding-term-benefits-arise-land/.
- Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa (1955) 2 SCR 919 – Trace Your Case, https://traceyourcase.com/ananda-behera-v-state-of-orissa-1955-2-scr-919/.
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882, https://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Studentmodules/Corporate-Laws/Real-Estate-Law/Transfer-of-Property-Act-1882.htm.
[1] [1963] S.C.R. 476
