In Smt. Rukhsana and Ors. v. Smt. Nazrunnisha and Ors. 2001(92)RD 386, the Supreme Court held that the Succession Certificate as envisaged under the Indian Succession Act was only granted in respect of "debts" or "securities" to which the deceased was entitled. The compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act was not a debt nor a succession certificate was required to be obtained in order to claim the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.
In Resilikutty Chacko and Ors. v. State of Kerala AIR 1999 Kerala 56, the Court held that a succession certificate was not required to be filed by the heirs of the claimant towards compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
In view of the aforesaid, it can clearly be held that the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act is not a debt as contemplated under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and therefore, the claimants are not required to furnish a succession certificate. Consequently, the direction of the Court by its order dated 17.5.2006 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Allahabad High Court
Ramkali W/O Jagmal, Babu Ram S/O ... vs State Of U.P. Through Collector ... on 1 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 All 8, 2006 (4) AWC 3875
Bench: T Agarwala
1. 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 NOEDA. 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 Hon'ble 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 India 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-General's 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 Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not a recovery of a debt nor the execution proceedings initiated by the claimants is for a recovery of a debt as contemplated under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act.
7. In Smt. Rukhsana and Ors. v. Smt. Nazrunnisha and Ors. 2001(92)RD 386, the Supreme Court held that the Succession Certificate as envisaged under the Indian Succession Act was only granted in respect of "debts" or "securities" to which the deceased was entitled. The compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act was not a debt nor a succession certificate was required to be obtained in order to claim the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act.
8. In Resilikutty Chacko and Ors. v. State of Kerala AIR 1999 Kerala 56, the Court held that a succession certificate was not required to be filed by the heirs of the claimant towards compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
9. In view of the aforesaid, it can clearly be held that the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act is not a debt as contemplated under Section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and therefore, the claimants are not required to furnish a succession certificate. Consequently, the direction of the Court by its order dated 17.5.2006 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
10. The court below will decide as to who are the legal representatives of the original claimant on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and if the court below is satisfied that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased claimant, in that event, their names would be substituted.
No comments:
Post a Comment