JUDGMENT M.L. Bhat, J. - This is a petition directed against the orders dated 15-2-1978 and 28-2-1979 by which the agreement executed by the petitioner with the respondents has been termed as lease agreement. The petitioner is asked to pay the stamp duty, though the penalty has been waived. The stamp duty payable by the petitioner as demanded by the respondent comes to near about Rs. 10,900/- treating the agreement as lease deed. 2. The deficiency in the stamp is calculated at Rs. 10270.10 paise and the amount of penalty is calculated at Rs. 4729.90 paise. In all the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/-. On revision the chief controlling revenue authority has partly allowed the petitioners revision and it has waived the amount of penalty but directed to pay the stamp duty of Rs. 10270.10 paise. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the said authority and submitted that there was no lease on which stamp duty was payable by him. The proforma agreement annexed to the petition as Annexure-I would show that the Fishary Department had offered sale of fish to the petitioner and the rates were fixed in the agreement. Nothing was given on lease to the petitioner for which lease deed was required to be executed. It was an agreement of sale and purchase of movable property and not an agreement of lease. Lease of property are supposed that some immovable property is granted for enjoyment of the lessee by the lessor on payment of lease amount either in cash or in kind to be paid either at the time of execution of the lease agreement or in future. The lessee is necessarily to be given possession of the immovable property and he has to remain in possession of the same property for the period mentioned in the lease agreement. The present agreement is absolutely of a different nature. It only obliges the petitioner to purchase fish, which is not immovable property but is movable property, from the Fishary department. It is Fishary department who has to take out the fish from water under their control and thereafter, sell out to the petitioner who has agreed to purchase the fish at the rate specified in the agreement. It only obliges the petitioner to purchase fish, which is not immovable property but is movable property, from the Fishary department. It is Fishary department who has to take out the fish from water under their control and thereafter, sell out to the petitioner who has agreed to purchase the fish at the rate specified in the agreement. Therefore, the agreement in question is only governed by Article 5 of the Schedule I of the Stamps Act as it is agreement or it may be termed as memorandum of an agreement, not otherwise provided. It relates to sale of goods and does not confer any right to the petitioner to enjoy the immovable property as postulated by lease agreement. Therefore, Article 35 of Schedule I of the Stamps Act has no application to the present case because, as already stated, the agreement in question is not a lease deed concerning immovable property. That being so the petitioner is not obliged to pay the stamp duty under Article 35 and he cannot be compelled to pay the amount of Rs. 10270.10. The demand made for realisation of the said amount is misconceived and against the provisions of law. The revisional authority has rightly waived off the amount of penalty. It should have waived off the amount of the stamp duty also. But it seems that he has not been able to draw distinction between the memorandum of agreement and the lease deed and has mistakenly construed the agreement as lease deed. 4. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is obliged to pay only stamp duty which is payable on memorandum of agreement under Article 5 of the Schedule of the Stamp Act and he is not required to pay stamp duty in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. He may be asked to pay the stamp duty in accordance with Article 5 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act which is payable on the memorandum of agreement and the same is recoverable from him, if not already paid. 5. Demand of the respondents for payment of Rs. 10,270.10 paise is wholly against the provisions of law. Therefore, the said demand is hereby quashed. 5. Demand of the respondents for payment of Rs. 10,270.10 paise is wholly against the provisions of law. Therefore, the said demand is hereby quashed. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the demand made by the respondents for payment of stamp duty in accordance with Article 35 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act at Rs. 10270.10 paise, is quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the agreement in question as memorandum of agreement for the purchase of movable property on which the stamp duty is payable in accordance with Article 5 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. 6. There will be no order as to costs.