The main legal point established in the judgment is that in execution proceedings arising from a land acquisition award, the legal representatives are required to produce a succession certificate to prosecute the proceedings.

ORDER :

At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking quashment of the order dated 15.03.2013 (Annexure-P-4) which has been passed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No.25/2011, pending before the First Additional District Judge, Raisen.

3. That the petitioners are legal heirs of Lalji S/o Bihari Lal in whose favour award has been passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘Act, 1894’) as his land got acquired under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and an award of Rs.96,334/-per acre for irrigated land and Rs.89,891/-for unirrigated land has been passed. Thereafter, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and the said amount has been enhanced by the Reference Court vide award dated 06.05.2011 (Annexure-P-1). Thereafter, an execution was proceeded by the land owner, namely, Lalji S/o Bihari Lal and during the pendency of the execution proceeding, the award holder Lalji expired on 25.12.2012.

4. The application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the present petitioners claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of the original land owner Lalji. The judgment debtor/State Government raised an objection to the application saying that since the decree holder died during the pendency of execution case, therefore, provisions of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be applicable and accordingly the said application be rejected. The Executing Court considering the objection raised by the respondent/State, passed an order on 15.03.2013, which is impugned in this petition holding that the petitioners are required to obtain succession certificate and then only their names can be substituted in place of the decree holder Lalji.

5. The petitioners by the instant petition are assailing the order of the Executing Court saying that the direction for production of succession certificate is contrary to law and contended that the Court below has illegally rejected their application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the amount of compensation already deposited cannot be treated to be a debt as per the requirement of Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for brevity ‘Act, 1925’), therefore, in case of death of the decree holder in the execution proceedings initiated for implementing the award, direction for production of the succession certificate is not proper.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1953 Madras 28, parties being Aparanji Chetti V. Arunachalam Chettiar and others and AIR 1999 Kerala 56, parties being Resilikutty Chacko and others V. State of Kerala.

8. On the other hand, the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State supported the order of the Executing Court saying that the same does not suffer from any infirmity and prays for dismissal of the petition.

9. Arguments heard.

10. As per the facts of the case, it is undisputed that the execution proceedings pending before the Court below is arising out of the award passed by the Reference Court after entertaining the reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 and passed the award dated 06.05.2011 enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. However, from the order impugned it is clear that the awarded amount was not deposited by the judgment debtor and, therefore, the Court was inclined to issue warrant of attachment against the respondents.

11. As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the land owners in lieu of the execution proceedings initiated under the provisions of Act, 1894 cannot be considered to be a debts and accordingly Section 214 of the Act, 1925 would not be applicable.

12. Before weighin