What did the Supreme Court decide in Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa (1955)?

The Court said the fishing right in the lake was a profit a prendre— a benefit arising from land— and so part of immovable property.

Why is profit a prendre treated as immovable property?

Because it is a recurring benefit that comes out of land (like taking fish, timber, or minerals) and travels with the land title unless excluded.

Could the petitioner enforce the fishing licence against the State?

No. It was a personal contract. After abolition, the State was not bound to honour it under writ jurisdiction.

Does sale of future goods apply to such fishing rights?

No. The Court treated it not as future goods under the Sale of Goods Act but as a right arising from land (immovable property).

What is the key takeaway for property law students?

Benefits drawn from land—like fish from a lake—can be profits a prendre and thus part of immovable property in Indian law.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

201

Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa (1955) – profit a prendre in India, immovable property | The Law Easy

```

Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa (1955)

Profit a prendre counts as a benefit arising from land and forms part of immovable property.

Supreme Court of India 1955 (1955) 2 SCR 919 Property Law Constitutional Angle ~6 min read

Gulzar Hashmi India 2025-11-01 ananda-behera-v-state-of-orissa-1955

```

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Quick Summary

This case explains that a right to enter land and take natural produce—here, fish from Chilka Lake—is a profit a prendre. In Indian law, such a right is a benefit arising from land and therefore part of immovable property. The petitioner’s fishing licence was a personal contract; after the estate vested in the State under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the State was not bound by that contract in writ proceedings.

```

Issues

Does a right to catch and carry away fish from a lake amount to a profit a prendre?
If yes, does it form part of immovable property in India?
Could the petitioner enforce the fishing licence against the State through a writ under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1)?

Rules

Profit a prendre is a benefit arising out of land (e.g., taking fish, timber, minerals).
Benefits arising from land are treated as immovable property and pass with the land unless excluded.
Personal contracts under the Sale of Goods Act do not bind the State on vesting, and are not enforceable by writ.

Facts (Timeline)

Licence: Ananda Behera obtained a licence from the Raja of Parikud to catch and take all fish from specified parts of Chilka Lake.

Statutory Vesting: The Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 vested the estate, including the lake area, in the State of Orissa.

Dispute: The State declined to honour the earlier licence under the new regime.

Writ Petition: The petitioner alleged violation of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(1), and argued the licence was a sale of future goods, not about immovable property.

Arguments

Appellant (Ananda Behera)

The licence allowed catching and taking fish; this was a sale of future goods under the Sale of Goods Act.
Therefore, abolition of estates should not defeat his personal right to fish.
State’s refusal infringed property rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1).

Respondent (State of Orissa)

The right to enter the lake and take fish is a profit a prendre, i.e., a benefit from land—thus immovable property.
On vesting, the State took the estate free from such private licences unless saved by law.
A writ cannot enforce a personal contract against the State.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the lake formed part of immovable property, and the petitioner’s right to enter and take fish was a profit a prendre. Such a right is a benefit arising from land and falls within immovable property in India. The licence remained a personal contract and could not be enforced against the State through a writ. The petition was dismissed.

Ratio (Core Principle)

Profit a prendre—the right to take natural produce from another’s land—is a benefit arising from land and is treated as immovable property in Indian law. Personal licences of this kind do not bind the State post-vesting unless protected by statute.

Why It Matters

Clarifies how Indian law classifies resource-taking rights like fishing and timber.
Separates property rights from personal contracts in public law challenges.
Guides drafting of licences around lakes, forests, and minerals after land reforms.

Key Takeaways

Fishing rights from another’s land/waters = profit a prendre.
Benefits from land = immovable property.
Personal licences are not enforceable by writ against the State.
Sale-of-future-goods argument fails where the right arises from land.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: F.I.S.H. — From land, Immovable, State not bound, Hire (licence) is personal.

Spot the right: taking natural produce from land/water.
Classify: benefit from land ⇒ immovable property.
Enforce: personal licence ≠ writ against State post-vesting.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Is fishing in Chilka Lake a profit a prendre forming part of immovable property, and can it be enforced against the State by writ?

Rule: Profit a prendre is a benefit arising from land and is immovable property; personal contracts do not bind the State in writ proceedings.

Application: The licence allowed entry and removal of fish (natural produce). This fits profit a prendre. After abolition, the State took the estate; the licence, being personal, was not enforceable by writ.

Conclusion: Yes, it is a profit a prendre and part of immovable property; no writ relief—petition dismissed.

Glossary

Profit a prendre: Right to enter another’s land and take natural produce (e.g., fish, timber, minerals).
Immovable property: Property that is not movable; includes benefits arising from land.
Vesting: Transfer of ownership to the State under a statute.
Writ: Extraordinary remedy to enforce public law rights; not for private contract enforcement.

FAQs

It is a right to go onto someone else’s land and take part of its natural produce, like fish, timber, or minerals. It is treated as immovable property in India.

Because the essence of the right was to take produce from land, which the Court classed as a benefit arising from land—thus immovable property, not a mere sale of future goods.

Generally no. Writs protect public law rights, not private contractual claims, unless a statute clearly preserves them against the State.

It dismissed the petition because the claim was essentially contractual and not enforceable by writ against the State.

Quick Jump

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE: Ananda Behera v. State of Orissa (1955)
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: profit a prendre; immovable property; benefits arising from land
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Chilka Lake; Orissa Estates Abolition Act 1951; Article 19(1)(f); Article 31(1)
PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-01
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: ananda-behera-v-state-of-orissa-1955

```

Comment

Nothing for now