ORDER :- Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anurag Khanna, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

2. Since a pure question of law is involved, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter-affidavit.

3. The land of the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, commonly known as NOIDA. Against an offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and an award was given by the District Judge, against which, NOIDA filed a First Appeal before this Honble Court in which an interim order for the payment of the compensation to the heirs of the claimant, was passed. Against the said award, the petitioners also filed a First Appeal for the enhancement of the compensation. Prior to the award given by the District Judge, the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 died and therefore, the first appeal was filed by the present petitioners before the High Court. During the pendency of the First Appeal, the petitioners moved an application before the Court below for the substitution of their names, declaring themselves to be the heirs of the deceased and rightful claimants of the compensation awarded under Section 18 of the Act. The executing Court by an order dated 17-5-2006 directed the petitioners to file a succession certificate so that their names could be substituted and the compensation could be released. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no provision for the filing of a succession certificate in an application for the substitution of their names and for the release of the compensation awarded by the District Judge and therefore, the direction of the execution Court was erroneous and against the provisions of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.

5. The question for consideration is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a succession certificate was necessary in an execution proceeding for the release of the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act reads as under :-

"214 Proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the Courts of debts from debtors of deceased persons.- (1) No Court shall-

(a) pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on a succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or

(b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming, of-

(i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of administration to the estate of the deceased, or

(ii) a certificate granted under Section 31 or Section 32 of the Administrator-Generals Act, 1913 (3 of 1913) and having the debt mentioned therein, or

(iii) a Succession Certificate granted under Part X and having the debt specified therein, or

(iv) a certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889 (7 of 1889),

(v) a certificate granted under Bombay Regulation No. VIII of 1827 and, if granted after the first day of May, 1889 having the debt specified therein.

(2) The word "debt" in sub-section (1) includes any debt except rent, revenue or profits payable in respect of land used for agricultural purposes.

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that a succession certificate is required in a suit for the recovery of a debt filed by the representatives of a deceased person. In the present proceedings, the amount claimed is a compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. This compensation awarded under Secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document