Calcutta High Court Greenlights Second Execution Bid for Land Compensation: Deemed Decrees Dodge S.38 CPC Hurdle

In a significant ruling for landowners chasing delayed compensation, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has affirmed that land acquisition awards—treated as decrees by legal fiction—can be executed through multiple petitions until fully paid. Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi dismissed an appeal by the State of West Bengal against Shiladitya Banerjee and others, upholding a lower court order in The State of West Bengal vs. Shiladitya Banerjee and Ors. (APOT 277 of 2025).

The decision clarifies execution mechanics under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948, rejecting the state's jurisdictional and maintainability challenges.

Acquisition Echoes: A 30-Year Saga Unfolds

The dispute traces back to 1997, when the state acquired Premises No. 96, Narkeldanga Main Road, Kolkata, under the 1948 Act. The Collector awarded compensation on February 28, 1997, but an owner challenged it, leading to a reference under Section 8(1). The Alipore Reference Court enhanced the award on August 17, 2001 (LRA Case No. 177 of 1999).

The state appealed, securing a conditional stay on September 5, 2017, by depositing Rs. 4,11,59,371 with the Registrar General on September 7, 2017. The High Court further raised the market price to Rs. 4,00,000 per cottah on December 2, 2024; the Supreme Court's dismissal of the state's SLP on August 29, 2025 sealed the enhanced amount.

Landowners first filed execution at Alipore in 2005, but it yielded no full satisfaction. They then approached the High Court's Original Side (EC 7 of 2025), prompting the state's September 11, 2025 objections—now overturned.

State's Stand: One Bite at Execution, No High Court Encore

Advocate General Kishore Dutta argued the second petition was untenable: a prior Alipore filing barred it, and the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 38 CPC, as it didn't pass the original 2001 "decree." Deposits with the Collector and Registrar General, he urged, must adjust against dues, citing Gopal Krishna Mukherjee (AIR 1976 Cal 341), Rama Kanta Das (2003 1 CHN 323), and Gurpreet Singh (2006 8 SCC 457).

Landowners' Rebuttal: Fiction Can't Bind Execution

Senior Advocate S.N. Mookherjee countered that neither the 1894 Land Acquisition Act nor the 1948 Act provides execution machinery—awards are deemed decrees via Section 26(2) of 1894 and Section 8A of 1948, not actual civil court decrees. He invoked Sundaram Finance (2018 3 SCC 622) and Gurpreet Singh (2022 14 SCC 417), stressing multiple executions for unsatisfied awards.

Decoding Deemed Decrees: Why S.38 CPC Misses the Mark

The Bench dissected the statutory scheme: Collectors' awards under Section 7(2) of the 1948 Act aren't civil decrees; references under Section 8 invoke 1894 Act provisions mutatis mutandis , but execution relies on legal fiction, not CPC Sections 38-39.

"It is a trite law that so long as the decree remain outstanding, any number of execution petitions are permissible," the court noted, as the first petition didn't satisfy the award.

Precedents bolstered this: Gopal Krishna affirmed CPC review powers; Ramakanta Das treated awards as executable under Section 26(2); Gurpreet Singh (2006) addressed adjustments, deferred here to the executing court. Bhagyoday Cooperative and Sundaram Finance confirmed deemed decrees evade strict CPC execution rules—no transfer needed, jurisdiction follows assets.

Crucially: "Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 comes into operation when, the decree is passed by a Civil Court. It does not stand attracted, in the event, the award or the order put into execution, by a legal fiction, is treated as a decree."

The High Court's Original Side jurisdiction held, given state assets therein.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The award holder, therefore, is entitled to execute the award before a Civil Court. Neither the Act of 1948 nor the Act of 1894 has any mechanism for execution of the award. In order to avoid such lacunae it has been provided that, the award would be treated as a decree of the Court and executed as such."

"So long as the award remains unsatisfied, we find no reasons as to why the respondent cannot file the second execution petition to realize the awarded amount."

"The award which is ultimately put in execution, was passed by the Collector and has been clothed as a decree, by virtue of a legal fiction being created under Section 26(2) of the Act of 1894."

Appeal Axed: Path Cleared for Payment

The appeal was dismissed sans costs on February 13, 2026: "APOT No. 277 of 2025 along with all connected applications are dismissed without any order as to costs."

Quantum disputes and deposit adjustments remain for the executing court. This ruling empowers claimants in protracted acquisitions, easing enforcement nationwide for similar deemed decrees and sidestepping CPC rigidities—potentially streamlining recoveries where states drag feet.

As legal summaries note, it underscores that "land acquisition award can be executed through multiple petitions till full realisation."