Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Calcutta Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi held that a land acquisition award treated as a decree by legal fiction is not subject to the restrictions placed on civil court decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that successive execution petitions remain maintainable so long as the awarded compensation is not fully realised. The court dismissed a challenge brought by the State of West Bengal against a second execution petition filed by landowners before the High Court, arising from acquisition proceedings in which the compensation amount had been enhanced at the reference stage and further on appeal.

The dispute arose from acquisition proceedings initiated by the State under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 in respect of immovable property. The Collector published an award in February 1997 determining compensation. One of the property owners, dissatisfied with the award, sought a reference under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1948. The Special Land Acquisition Judge at Alipore modified the award in August 2001 by enhancing compensation.

Also Read: Supreme Court Eases Reapplication Bar for Senior Advocate Designation After Rejection/Deferment Under 2026 Guidelines

The State challenged the modification before the High Court, which in December 2024 further enhanced the market price of the acquired land. A Special Leave Petition filed against this order was dismissed in August 2025. Meanwhile, the award holders filed execution petitions to realize the compensation. The State objected to the maintainability of a second execution petition filed before the High Court, contending that execution could not be pursued twice and that jurisdiction lay with the court which passed the decree. The respondents argued that the award, clothed with the character of a decree by legal fiction, remained unsatisfied and could be executed again. Statutory provisions from the 1948 Act and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were invoked to support both sides’ contentions.

It stated: “Acquisition proceeding initiated under the Act of 1948 is not a Civil suit within the meaning of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Collector adjudicating on the quantum of compensation payable for the acquisition made by publishing the award, is not a civil court adjudicating upon a lis under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The award, therefore, of the Collector, cannot be said to be a decree passed by a Civil Court.”

The Bench observed: “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.”

It further recorded: “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 of a Civil Court when, no Civil Court did actually pass the award or order put into execution.”

The Court stated: “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. The award is not a decree passed by a Court to fall within the parameters of Sections 38 and 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”

It noted: “In view of the discussions above, the second issue is answered by holding that, the execution petition filed by the respondent before the High Court, is maintainable in view of the fact that, the award was passed by the Collector, enhanced on reference and, further enhanced on appeal by the High Court.”

Also Read: Interview Cut-Off Marks Introduced Midway Through Recruitment Process Illegal; Similarly Placed Candidates Entitled To Extension Of Same Relief : Calcutta High Court

The Court directed: “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. In such circumstances, the execution petition filed before this Hon'ble Court is maintainable. Learned Executing Court has directed payment to be made. We find no ground to interfere with the directions issued by the Learned Executing Court. During the pendency of the appeal, orders have been passed with regard to the amount payable. We clarify that we have not adjudicated on the amount receivable by respondents in terms of the award. We keep such points open.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Advocate General; Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Adv.; Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya, Adv.; Ms. Nilanjana Adhya, Adv.; Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Debayan Sen, Adv.; Mr. Niket Ojha, Adv.; Ms. Swagata Ghosh, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sabyasachi Sen, Adv.; Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.; Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.; Mr. Ramanuj Roy Chowdhuri, Adv.; Mr. Swapan Nath, Adv.; Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Adv.; Ms. Shreyasi Nath, Adv.

Case Title: The State of West Bengal vs Shiladitya Banerjee and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-OS:55-DB
Case Number: APOT 277 of 2025
Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak, Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi