Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. In both these Civil Revision Petitions the same question arises and the petitioner is also the same and hence they are disposed of together. 2. These Civil Revision Petitions arise from the orders passed in execution in L.A.R. Nos. 115 and 116 of 1982. C.R.P. No. 210/98 arises from the orders passed in E. A. No. 318/97 in E.P.No. 209/1988 in L.A.R. No. 116/82 while C.R.P. No. 211/98 arises from the orders in E. A. No. 309/97 in E. A. No. 208/1988 in L.A.R. No. 115/82. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest was one V.T. Chacko. His properties were acquired and some compensation was given. On reference, the Sub Court registered L.A.R. No. 116/82 and L.A.R. No. 115/82. The Sub Court enhanced the compensation. An award was passed for the enhanced amount in both these cases. Subsequently Chacko filed execution applications in both the L.A.Rs. Pending execution, Chacko died on 25.8.1997. The petitioners are his legal representatives. They filed applications to get themselves impleaded in the execution. But the applications were dismissed by the Court below on the ground that succession certificate was not produced. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that no objection was filed by the State with regard to the fact that the petitioners are the legal representatives of Chacko. 3. The question for consideration is whether a succession certificate is necessary in such execution petition. S.214(1)(a) & (b) of the Indian Succession Act states as follows: "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 succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, or (b) proceed, up on 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". Under S.214(1) (a) when the suit is for recovery of a debt filed by the representatives of a deceased person, a succession certificate is necessary. Similarly, under S.214(1)(b) in an execution petition to execute the decree for recovery of a debt, a certificate is necessary. The question for consideration is whether in the present proceedings, a succession certificate is necessary. 4. Similarly, under S.214(1)(b) in an execution petition to execute the decree for recovery of a debt, a certificate is necessary. The question for consideration is whether in the present proceedings, a succession certificate is necessary. 4. The present proceedings come under S.214(1)(b) of the Act. The word 'debt' appears in both clauses (a) and (b). Hence same meaning should be given for the word which appears in both the Clauses. It cannot be said that under Clause (b) every decree for execution of recovery of money can be said to be a proceeding against a debtor. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Anehakana Sur v. Abani Bhusan - AIR 1982 Calcutta 378 - which held as follows: "The use of the expressions "such a debtor and his debt" in cl. (b) referred to hereinbefore make it abundantly clear that the "debt' referred to cl. (b) is referable to a "debt" as in cl. (a). In other words, unless the original claim in the suit which was the foundation for the decree was a debt'; cl. (b) would not be attracted. And we have already indicated that the original claim for damages on accounting could not come within the meaning of "debt'. Consequently, in order to sustain a proceeding in execution by the heirs of the deceased decree-holder, a succession certificate would not be necessary". Thus, if the present decree comes within Clause (a), then necessarily under clause (b), a succession certificate has to be obtained. The land acquisition proceedings arise from a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In the reference, what is being done is to find out whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is adequate and whether the parties before the Court are entitled to enhanced compensation. 5. A debt has been defined as an obligation to pay an ascertained sum of money. In that definition, compensation does not come. Further, this is not a suit to recover a debt from a person. Hence, I am of the view that so far as a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, that proceedings is not a proceeding for recovery of a debt. 6. InAparanji v. Arunachalam - AIR 1953 Madras 28 - a similar question came up for consideration. Hence, I am of the view that so far as a reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act is concerned, that proceedings is not a proceeding for recovery of a debt. 6. InAparanji v. Arunachalam - AIR 1953 Madras 28 - a similar question came up for consideration. There the question was whether a reversioner under the Hindu Law is obliged to produce a succession certificate to receive the compensation amount. His Lordship Justice Krishnaswami Naydu held as follows: "Further, from a reading of S.214 of the Succession Act, a succession certificate is necessary only in respect of the debt due to a deceased person. It cannot be said that this debt was due and owing to Kanniya Chetti whose properties only the petitioner is claiming, not the properties of Bangaru. It is obviously a case where it could not be said to be the recovery of a debt to the deceased person, Kanniya". In Anehakana Sur & Ors. v. Abani Bhusan Sur & Ors. - AIR 1982 Calcutta 378 - the question was whether a suit for recovery of profits misappropriated by receiver will come under the provisions of S.214(1) of the Succession Act. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held as follows: "the claim in the suit was apparently not a claim for a liquidated sum. To all intends and purposes it was a suit for accounts. An action claiming an account is not an action for recovery of debt and is not covered by S.214 of Succession Act." The decision cited by the learned Government Pleader in Ramakrishnan Nair v. Easwari Amma -1979 KLT 410 - does not apply to the facts of this case, because the question whether compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is a debt or not did not come up for consideration in that case. 7. In the above view of the m alter, I set aside the order of the Court below directing the production of the succession certificate. If on the basis of the facts and evidence the court is satisfied that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder, then the amount can be given to the present petitioners. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.