JUDGMENT : 1. It is unfortunate that the petitioner Gangamathasthra Meenugarara Sahakara Sangah is before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for registration of the lease as per Annexure – E. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner – Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of carrying on the business in fisheries. There is a huge lake (Kere) known and called as ‘Rajesh Kere’ spread over about almost 100 hectares of land in Merched village of Raichur Taluka. The said lake was formed prior to the independence. The Government of Karnataka in order to harness the fisheries all over the Karnataka formulated a policy to auction/grant lease of the water bodies to the eligible societies. As per the said policy, registered societies were allowed to participate in the tender process/lease process. The second respondent who is the authority under the said policy has granted leasehold rights of fisheries to Rajasab Kere Abhivruddhi Sangah for a period of from 2009-10 to 2013-14. Accordingly, Rajasab Kere Abhivruddhi Sangah was carrying on the work of culture, bread and fishing and other allied activities and the same was renewed up to 27.06.2014. There was a dispute between the petitioner and other private parties. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.S.No.76/2014 for injunction and the Trial Court rejected the temporary injunction and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the leasehold rights alleged to have been granted in favour of the petitioner by the second respondent is not registered. The petitioner made representation to the third respondent requesting him to execute the registered document in terms of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries. Bellary dated 27.06.2014. In spite of the representation respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the same and have not passed any orders till today. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Bellary dated 27.06.2014. In spite of the representation respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the same and have not passed any orders till today. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 4. Sri R.S. Siddapurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 not considering the representation made by the petitioner as per Annexure-E is totally illegal and contrary to the order passed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Bellary as per Annexure-D dated 27.06.2014 and the same is in utter violation of the provisions of Section 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act and the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., vs. Sipahi Singh and others and reported in 1977(4) SCC 145 . He further contended that because of inaction on the part of the respondents not registering the document, he is not in a position to utilize the tank for which purpose it was granted. Even though the lease was extended by an order dated 27.06.2014 and even after lapse of two years, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the representation and not passed any orders. The same is in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition as prayed for. 5. Per contra, Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that if the petitioner has made representation to the third respondent, it is the duty of the third respondent to consider the same and pass orders within the reasonable period. if the third respondent has not considered, the same will be considered and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of carrying on the business of fisheries. if the third respondent has not considered, the same will be considered and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act with the sole object of carrying on the business of fisheries. It is also not in dispute that the leasehold rights have been granted by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner for the years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 fixing the lease amount for every year by an order dated 27.06.2014 as per Annexure-D. It is also not in dispute that some private persons have obstructed the petitioner to enjoy the leasehold rights in respect of the tank and therefore, the petitioner had approached the Civil Court by filing a suit for permanent injunction. Both the Trial Court as well as the appellate Court rejected the application for temporary injunction on the ground that the leasehold rights executed in favour of the petitioner by the competent authority was not registered. 7. It is the duty of the concerned authority to execute the leasehold rights of the fisheries under registered document as soon as possible. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Bellary by an order dated 27.06.2014 granted the leasehold rights of fisheries in the Tank/Kere in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years subject to certain conditions. It is the duty of the concerned respondents to register the document in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act and the same has not been done in the present case. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the leasehold rights of the fisheries having been granted, it is the duty of the respondents to execute the lease deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., as stated supra that 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, 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 pendre’ is tangible immovable property, its sale has to be by means of a registered instrument in case its value exceeds Rs.100/- in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. If it is tangible, its sale is required to be effected by a registered instrument whatever be its value. Therefore, in either of the two situations, the grant of the ‘profit a prendre’ has to be by means of registered instrument. 9. In spite of the order passed by the competent authority as per Annexure-D dated 27.06.2014 and in spite of representation made on 08.09.2014 by the petitioner, till today respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the representation nor passed any orders. It is their duty to execute the registered document and the same has not been done. The inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 has been necessitated the petitioner to approach this Court for the relief sought for. The inaction on the part of the respondent is in utter violation of Articles 14, 21 and 19 (g) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is a fit case to issue writ of mandamus by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the concerned officer from his own pocket and not by the Government, because of the negligence in not discharging the duty within the reasonable period. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner to execute register document of the leasehold rights of the fisheries within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to pay litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner – Society by the concerned respondent – Authority from his own pocket and not from the Government. Ordered accordingly.