TMI Blog1955 (10) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aja of Parikud. This estate vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) on 24-9-1953 and has now ceased to exist in its original form. The Act came into force on 9-2-1952. The further facts are set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition in the following terms: That the petitioners carry on the business of catching and selling fish particularly. from fisheries within the said lake. That long before the vesting of the estate the petitioners had entered into contracts with the exproprietor and had obtained from the latter, on payment of heavy sums, licences for catching and appropriating all the fish from the fisheries detailed in the schedule given in the accompanying affidavit and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sections of the lake, and that as fish is moveable property Orissa Act I of 1952 is not attracted as that, Actis confined to immoveable I property. ,We agree with the learned Solicitor-General that if this is the basis of their right, then their petition under article 32 is misconceived because until any fish is actually caught the petitioners would not acquire any property in it. There can be no doubt that the lake is immoveable -property and that it formed part of the Raja s estate. As such it vested in the State of Orissa when the notification was issued under the Act and with it vested the right that all owners of land have, to bar access to their land and the right to regulate, control and sell the fisheries on it. If the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that category the definition in the General Clauses Act applies and as a profit a prendre is regarded as a benefit arising out of land it follows that it is immoveable property within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act. Now a sale is defined as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised. As a profit a prendre is immoveable property and as in this case it was purchased for a price that was paid it requires writing and registration because of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. If a profit a prendre is regarded as tangible immoveable property, then the property in this case was over ₹ 100 in value. If it is intangible, then a registered instrument would be necessary whatever the value. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y says, as any other person might say: I was not a party to that contract. Neither its rights nor its liabilities have devolved on me and I refuse to recognise it or to assume the obligations of either contracting party . If the State is wrong in its attitude that may give rise to a suit against it for damages for breach of contract or possibly, (though we do not say it would), to a right to sue for specific performance; but no question under articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) can arise because the State has not confiscated or acquired or taken possession of the contract as such. If it had it would have claimed the benefits under it. It would have taken the money that the petitioners paid to the Raja from the Raja or demanded it over again from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
