A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Ananda Behera and Another v. The State of Orissa and Another, [1955] 2 SCR 919, dealt with the intricate question of whether oral licenses to fish in specific sections of Chilka Lake, granted by the erstwhile Raja of Parikud prior to the abolition of his estate, constituted enforceable property rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution. The petitioners, who had paid substantial sums for such rights, sought constitutional protection when the State of Orissa, post-vesting of the estate under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, refused to recognize these transactions. The Court held that the petitioners had acquired no enforceable interest in property because their rights constituted a profit à prendre, classified as immovable property under Indian law, and such rights require registration under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Since these oral transactions lacked writing and registration, no title passed, and thus, there was no property to protect under the Constitution. The Court distinguished this case from Firm Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1953) SCR 476], reaffirming the nuanced distinction between movable and immovable rights. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, denying the existence of any fundamental right violation.

Keywords: Profit à prendre, immovable property, fishery rights, constitutional protection, oral license, Article 19(1)(f), Article 31(1), Chilka Lake.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Ananda Behera and Another v. The State of Orissa and Another

ii) Case Number
Petition No. 286 of 1955 (also governed Petitions No. 287, 288, 289, and 304 of 1955)

iii) Judgement Date
27 October 1955

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
S. R. Das (Acting C.J.), Vivian Bose, Jagannadhadas, Jaffer Imam, and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Vivian Bose

vii) Citation
[1955] 2 SCR 919

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Article 32, Article 19(1)(f), Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India;
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;
Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897;
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Property Law, Environmental and Natural Resource Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation arose in the context of estate abolition and redistribution of proprietary rights under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. Before the Act’s enforcement, the Raja of Parikud granted oral licenses to fish in the Chilka Lake for specified future years. The petitioners, relying on these licenses and having paid significant sums, sought to enforce their right to the fisheries under constitutional provisions. The lake, once part of a princely estate, became state property following the estate’s vesting. The State refused to honor the Raja’s oral licenses, prompting this constitutional challenge under Article 32 alleging a violation of Article 19(1)(f) (right to acquire and hold property) and Article 31(1) (right against deprivation of property without authority of law). The Supreme Court evaluated the nature of the rights conveyed by the Raja and whether such rights amounted to enforceable “property” protected by the Constitution.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners were commercial fishers operating within Chilka Lake. They had obtained oral permissions—termed licenses—from the Raja of Parikud between 1950 and 1952. These licenses permitted them to catch and carry away fish from certain defined sections of the lake in future years, including as late as 1958–59. At the time of these grants, the estate had not yet vested in the State, but the usage rights pertained to periods well after the statutory vesting date, which occurred on 24 September 1953, following the enforcement of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act in February 1952. The State Government, not a party to the original arrangements, rejected the validity of the licenses, initiated re-auctioning of fishery rights, and prompted the petitioners to seek redressal via writ petitions, asserting their licenses constituted rights to “property” that could not be expropriated or ignored without due process.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether oral licenses granted for fishing constituted valid enforceable rights in immovable property post-vesting.

ii. Whether such oral transactions created a profit à prendre and thus required compliance with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

iii. Whether the non-recognition of such transactions by the State violated fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution.

iv. Whether a contractual right (if assumed) qualifies as “property” under constitutional protection.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the transactions were sales of future goods, specifically the fish yet to be caught, which are moveable property under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Thus, they argued that the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, which targeted immovable property, had no relevance to the licenses.

ii. They contended that the State, by refusing to honor the licenses, effectively deprived them of their property without due process, violating Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1).

iii. They stressed that these contracts were entered lawfully and before the abolition of the estate and thus should be upheld as legitimate.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the petitioners had not acquired any enforceable proprietary interest because the right to catch fish from specific lake portions constituted a profit à prendre—a right in immovable property under Indian law.

ii. They emphasized that as the agreements were oral and unregistered, they did not satisfy the requirements under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus no legal interest had passed.

iii. They further asserted that even if the contracts had validity, the State was not a party and thus could not be bound, especially after the abolition and vesting of the Raja’s estate.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution (now repealed): Right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.

ii. Article 31(1) of the Constitution (now repealed): Protection against deprivation of property.

iii. Section 54, Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Defines “sale” and mandates registration for immovable property valued over ₹100.

iv. Section 3(26), General Clauses Act, 1897: Includes profits à prendre under immovable property.

v. Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951: Enables the vesting of princely estates into State ownership.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that the right to fish from specific parts of a lake over future years was not merely a right to future goods (fish) but rather a license to enter land and extract its natural produce, constituting a profit à prendre, which is immovable property under Indian law. This classification invoked Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring registration for valid transfer.

ii. As the transactions were oral and unregistered, no title or enforceable interest passed to the petitioners, and hence no fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) or 31(1) were violated.

iii. The Court clarified that non-recognition of the contract by the State does not amount to confiscation or acquisition, which would be necessary to invoke Article 31(1). The State’s refusal to be bound did not equate to unlawful deprivation.

iv. The decision also clarified that even assuming the contracts were “property,” mere breach or non-performance does not attract constitutional protections; remedies lie in civil suits for breach of contract.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. The Court observed that the profit à prendre doctrine applies differently in India than in England. In Indian jurisprudence, such rights, arising from land, fall under immovable property.

ii. It distinguished Firm Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1953) SCR 476] on the grounds that tendu leaves (being crops) are specifically excluded from immovable property under Indian law, unlike fishery rights.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Profit à prendre must be treated as immovable property in Indian law.

• Transfers of profit à prendre must comply with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

• Oral transactions relating to immovable property are void if not registered.

• Contracts not recognized by the State do not constitute acquisition or confiscation.

• Fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) or 31(1) are not triggered by simple breach or non-recognition of contract.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The ruling in Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa is a landmark exposition on the nuanced treatment of property rights in Indian constitutional and property law. The case underscores that not every denial of a contractual claim implicates fundamental rights. The Court made a principled distinction between statutory confiscation and non-recognition of a private arrangement post-estate abolition. It also brought clarity to the nature of fishery rights, aligning them with the doctrine of profit à prendre, and established that oral licenses without registration cannot confer proprietary rights. The judgment reinforced procedural compliance in property transactions and the limits of constitutional protection in private civil disputes.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Firm Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel & Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1953] SCR 476
ii. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 11 (Hailsham Edn.), pp. 382–387

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India, Articles 19(1)(f), 31(1), and 32
ii. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 54
iii. General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(26)
iv. Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952)
v. Sale of Goods Act, 1930