Profit a prendre in fishery rights requires registration; oral transfers convey no title, and State non-recognition is not property deprivation.

A right to enter specified parts of a lake, catch fish and carry them away for future periods is a profit a prendre and therefore an interest in immovable property. An oral, unregistered transfer of such a right conveys no title or enforceable proprietary interest where writing and registration are required. The State's refusal to recognise the private contracts did not amount to confiscation, acquisition, or taking possession of property, so there was no deprivation of property and no infringement of Articles 19(1)(f) or 31(1). Any remedy, if available, lay in contract against the proper party, not in constitutional property claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fishery rights in the lake were a profit a prendre and therefore immovable property requiring writing and registration, so that the oral transactions conveyed no title or interest. (ii) Whether the State's refusal to recognise the contracts amounted to deprivation of property or infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the fishery rights in the lake were a profit a prendre and therefore immovable property requiring writing and registration, so that the oral transactions conveyed no title or interest.

Analysis: The rights sold were not merely a right to receive future fish as movable goods; they were a right to enter specified sections of the lake, catch the fish and carry them away for stated future periods. Such a right is a profit a prendre, which is an interest in land and a benefit arising out of land. Under Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, such a benefit is immovable property, and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act requires a transfer of such property by writing and registration when the value exceeds the statutory threshold or where the interest is intangible. The transactions were oral and unregistered.

Conclusion: The transactions passed no title or proprietary interest, and the petitioners acquired no enforceable property right on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the State's refusal to recognise the contracts amounted to deprivation of property or infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Even assuming that the contracts themselves were property, the State did not confiscate, acquire, or take possession of them. It merely declined to recognise contractual obligations to which it was not a party. Any remedy, if available, would lie in contract against the proper party and not in a claim for violation of constitutional property rights.

Conclusion: There was no deprivation of property by the State and no infringement of Articles 19(1)(f) or 31(1).

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the petitioners had acquired no protected proprietary interest and the State's conduct did not amount to constitutional deprivation of property.

Ratio Decidendi: A right to enter land and take fish for future periods is a profit a prendre and therefore immovable property; an oral and unregistered transfer of such a right conveys no title, and mere refusal by the State to recognise a private contract does not itself amount to constitutional deprivation of property.

---