JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order cancelling the lease in favour of the petitioner and also for commanding the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the tank. 2. The petitioner claimed right in the tank on the basis of an agreement contained in Annexure 2 attached with the writ petition which is dated 21-11-1988. According to the petitioner his lease has been cancelled by a non-speaking order and without assigning any reason and that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that the lease deed dated 21-11- 1988 contained in Annexure-2 attached with the writ petition required registration and since the documents is not a registered one, no valid title passed to the petitioner and the writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 3. The second main ground attacking the claim of the petitioner is to the effect that members of the Town Area committee as well as Chairman of the town area were elected on 12-11-1988 and they took oath of office on 26-11-1988. The petitioner obtained lease on 21-11-1988 which would be operative from 1-4-1989, therefore, the petitioner had not moved fairly and reasonably in obtaining the lease in his favour and the conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve to be heard by this Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution It was also contended that the lease in favour of the petitioner is not in consonance with the Notification dated 15-5-1987, therefore, no right accrued to the petitioner. Relevant allegations regarding fraudulent transaction and illegality of the document relied upon by the petitioner have been made in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter-affidavit. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that the petitioner can get the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. One of the questions raised before us is whether the petitioner gets any right on the basis of the agreement contained in Annexure 2 attached with the writ petition which is not a registered document. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that the petitioner can get the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. One of the questions raised before us is whether the petitioner gets any right on the basis of the agreement contained in Annexure 2 attached with the writ petition which is not a registered document. In this connection it is necessary to mention the ruling reported in AIR 1977 SC 2149 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated vide para 11 as below : "That apart, there is an additional reason for holding that the settlement ofJalkar with respondent no. 1 was not valid and enforceable. The right to catch and carry away the fish being a profit a prendre i.e. a profit or benefit arising out of the land- The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fiehermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh, 1 it has to be regarded as immovable property within the meaning of the transfer of property Act read in the light of section 3 (26) of the General Clauses Act. If a profit a prendre' is gangible immoveable property, its sale has to be by means of a registered instrument in case its value exceeds Rs. 100/- because of section 54 of the Transfer of property Act. If it is intangible, its sale is required to be effected by a registered instrument what ever its value. Therefore, in either of the two situations, the grant of profit a prendre has to be by means of a registered instrument. Accordingly, the transaction of sale of the right to catch and carry away the fish if not effected by means of a registered instrument would pass no title or interest. Even if the settlement of Jalkar with respondent no. 1 is regarded as a lease as described by him in Annexure-2 to the writ petition it would not make any difference because a lease of fishery which is immovable property as defined by section 2 (6) of the Registration Act if it is for any term exceeding one year or reserves a yearly rent has also to be registered as required by section 17 (1) (d) of the Transfer of property Act. As in the instant case, the transfer of the profit a prendre in favour of respondent no. As in the instant case, the transfer of the profit a prendre in favour of respondent no. 1 was admittedly for two years reserving a yearly rent and was not evidenced by a registered instrument, be had no right, title or interest which could be enforced by him. Manifestly therefore, the writ petition was misconceived and ought to have been dismissed." In the light of the above observations we also arrive at the conclusion that the present writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The bare reading of Annexure II attached with the writ petition indicates that the document is a lease for a period of 10 years Therefore, in our opinion, it required registration and the document being unregistered one, does not confer any right, title or interest upon the petitioner 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to contend before us that the agreement relied upon by the petitioner is in the nature of a licence and required no registration. It has also been stressed that even if the document is treated as a lease, it is for agricultural purposes, therefore, it required no registration in view of the provisions of section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the rulings mentioned in 24 Mad. 921, AIR 1931 Cal. 135 and AIR 1979 Pat. 106 . In our opinion, the aforesaid rulings are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Rather, Annexure 2 indicates that the tank was given to the petitioner only for the purpose of rearing fish. In the rulings of Calcutta and Patna High Courts the lease was with regard to the area of embankment which could be used for the purpose of cultivation but this is not the case in the document relied upon by the petitioner and contained in Annexure 2 attached with the writ petition. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document can be treated for agricultural purposes and was exempt from registration. In our opinion, the petitioner has no right, title and interest in the tank and the writ petition is a misconceived one. 6. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document can be treated for agricultural purposes and was exempt from registration. In our opinion, the petitioner has no right, title and interest in the tank and the writ petition is a misconceived one. 6. Moreover, it is necessary to mention that the petitioner obtained the document dated 21-11-1988 contained in Annexure 2 attached with the writ petition from the prescribed authority when elections of proposed chairman had taken place. Since the document is to take effect from 1-4-1989, therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in obtaining the document does not appear fair and proper to us therefore, we are not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also note-worthy that there is contractual right and obligations between the parties which can be enforced by the petitioner in a regular title suit. According to us there is an alternative remedy open to the petitioner and the petitioner can get his claim determined in a regular title suit by claiming relief of injunction and damages etc, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and grant relief to the petitioner. 7. During the course of argument our attention has been drawn to the provisions of section 293 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Nagar Palika Act, 1916 which reads as below : "Nagar Kshettra (Town Area) kisi aisi achal sampatti ko jo ukse prabandh men rakhi ya Saunpi Gai ho Jisme koi aisi sarvanjanik sadak ye sthan bhi shamil hoga jise upyog men lajie ye kabze men rakbne ki usne iiaiat di bo cbane uspar koi Nigat bag banane ki agva dekar aisi ijajat di gai ho ya kisi anya prakar se upyog men lane ya kabje men rakhne (par patte ke adhin nahi) ke liye shujik le sakti hai. Aisi shulk upvidhi banakar ya sarva- jnik neelam dwara ya ikrarnameke juriye niyat kiya jayega." In our opinion the aforesaid provision does not help the petitioner. The petitioner relies upon an agreement, therefore, that agreement must be a valid document strictly in accordance with law but it is not so in the present case as it is not a registered document. 8. The petitioner relies upon an agreement, therefore, that agreement must be a valid document strictly in accordance with law but it is not so in the present case as it is not a registered document. 8. In view of our above discussions it is not necessary to deal with other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in justification of his contention that the transaction may be treated as a licence and the relief may be granted to him. Since we have arrived at the conclusion earlier that the document relied upon by the petitioner is a lease for a period of ten years regarding 'profit a prendre' in the immovable property which required registration, the petitioner has no right, title and interest in the disputed tank. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents have been represented through a counsel of this Court but in the circumstances of this case we make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.