JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Aggrieved by imposition of stamp duty and penalty on the bid-sheet petitioner, a contractor of fisheries rights approached Board of Revenue by way of revision without any success. It has been held both by the Board and the Collector on recommendation of District Stamp Officer that bid-sheet was a lease within the meaning of Stamp Act, therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay duty as provided in the Act. 2. In Board of Revenue v. Mulakh Raj and another, (1984) ALJ 331 a special Bench of this Court while considering similar controversy in respect of an agreement granting right to remove sand from the bed of the river held that where no right was conferred in respect of any immovable property the agreement of instrument could not be described as lease as defined in Stamp Act. In this very decision reference has been made to the case of Anand Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1956 SC 17 which related to fishery rights. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the rights were in the nature of 'profits a prendre'. Therefore, it appears to be settled that an agreement granting fishery right cannot be considered to be a lease as defined in Stamp Act. The authorities, therefore, were not justified in demanding stamp duty on it and levying penalty treating the bid-sheet as lease. Although it is doubtful if bid-sheet could be treated as an instrument but even assuming it to be so it could only be treated as licence as held by Special Bench in the decision mentioned above. In view of this, it is not necessary to consider the other submission raised on behalf of learned counsel for petitioner that Collector was not empowered to impound the bid-sheet after summoning it from the office of Land Reforms Officer. 3. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Board of Revenue and the Collector passed on recommendation of Stamp Officer are quashed.