JUDGMENT Nirendra Krishna Mitra, J. A short but interesting question of law has cropped up in this case that is, whether a succession certificate is required to get the land acquisition compensation by the heirs of a deceased claimant. In short, the facts of the case inter alia were, that certain lands in Mouja Petrapole, District North 24 Parganas belonging to Anisuddin Sheikh were acquired by the State Government in L.A. Case No. 4/3 of 1995-96 under the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 (W.B. Act II of 1948) and a sum of Rs. 22,167.45 paise was awarded as compensation and the Collector, 24 Parganas (North) by his notice dated January 1, 1998 issued in the name of Anisuddin Sheikh asked the owner to appear before him on January 20, 1998 to receive the said amount (Annexure 'B' to the writ application). 2. By this time the said Anisuddin Sheikh was died, having died on October 22, 1997 and the writ petitioners were duly substituted in his place and stead in the said proceeding, and as such, they claimed the said compensation money, but the Land Acquisition Collector at Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) by his notice dated March 9, 1998 informed the writ petitioners that as the amount of compensation awarded against their deceased father (Anisuddin Sheikh) was beyond the limit of the Collector's power, the writ petitioners were required to submit succession certificate from the appropriate authority (Annexure 'A' to the writ application) and the said notice is the subject matter of challenge before this Hon'ble Court. It was argued by Mr. Mukherjee learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, where after the death of the owner, an award was passed, such award was not a debt within the meaning of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and as such no succession certificate was require to be produced by the heirs of the deceased owner. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee referred to the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in 15 CWN 1018, 33 CWN 1177 (F.B.) AIR 1968 Bom 31 , AIR 1972 Pat 27 . 3. Mr. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee referred to the decisions of this Hon'ble Court in 15 CWN 1018, 33 CWN 1177 (F.B.) AIR 1968 Bom 31 , AIR 1972 Pat 27 . 3. Mr. Dutta learned counsel arguing on behalf of the State respondents, however, contended that land acquisition compensation is a debt within the meaning of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and as such succession certificate is necessary for the heirs to receive the said compensation award granted in favour of the deceased owner. In support of his said contention, Mr. Dutta referred to the Full Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in 13 CWN 966 (F.B.) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 1047 . So far as the decisions in 15 CWN 1018 and 33 CWN 1177 (F.B.) as cited by Mr. Mukherjee was concerned, according to Mr. Dutta, the same were quite distinguishable on facts. 4. The word debt has not been defined in the Indian Succession Act. It has been given various meanings with reference to particular legislation where the definition of debt was required to be given. "A sum of money due under an express or implied agreement amount due or payable from one person to another in return for money, services, goods or other obligation". The Law Lexicon defined debt as above. The author has further said that the word debt is of a large import, including not only debts of record of judgment, and debts by specialty, but also obligation arising under simple contract, to a very wide extent, and in its popular sense includes all that is due to a man under any form of obligation or promise. What is ordinarily understood by the word debt is a liability owing from one person to another whether in cash or kind, secured or unsecured, whether ascertained or ascertainable, arising out of any obligation, express or implied. Pearson J, in the case of Secretary of State and Anr. vs. Parijit Debi and Anr. in AIR 1933 Cal 341, which was a third judge reference said as follows:- It is now well settled so far as this Court is concerned that the debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation. vs. Parijit Debi and Anr. in AIR 1933 Cal 341, which was a third judge reference said as follows:- It is now well settled so far as this Court is concerned that the debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation. That is also the definition of the word debt as used in section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act, which now corresponds with section 214, Succession Act. 5. This Hon'ble Court in its Full Bench judgment in the case of Bancha Ram Majumder vs. Adya Nath Bhattacharjee and Ors., 13 CWN 966 has also held that a debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in future by reason of a present obligation. Undoubtedly, in view of the acquisition of the lands of the deceased father of the writ petitioners, the State Government was under an obligation to pay compensation. That compensation award might have been declared before the death of the owner or could be declared subsequent to his death and in any such case, compensation money would become a debt. Lastly the Supreme Court in the case of P.S.I. Pamanathan Chettiar and Ors. vs. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 1047 has also held inter alia, that 'debt' is liability to pay in present or in future and ascertainable sum of money. From all above discussions it is thus quite clear that land acquisition compensation is a debt within the meaning of section 214 of the Indian Succession Act and a succession certificate would be required to be produced by the heirs of the original owner in order to get the compensation awarded in favour of the deceased owner. 6. So far as the Full Bench Division of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Brajendra Sunder Banerjee vs. Niladrinath Majumder and Ors., 33 CWN 1177 is concerned, it has been rightly pointed out by Mr. Dutt, that the observations made in the said judgment regarding grant of succession certificate in respect of compensation money was an obiter dictum. 7. Mr. Dutt, also rightly pointed out that the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Abinas Chandra Paul and Ors. vs. Probodh Chandra Paul, 15 CWN 1018 was quite distinguishable on facts. 8. Dutt, that the observations made in the said judgment regarding grant of succession certificate in respect of compensation money was an obiter dictum. 7. Mr. Dutt, also rightly pointed out that the decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Abinas Chandra Paul and Ors. vs. Probodh Chandra Paul, 15 CWN 1018 was quite distinguishable on facts. 8. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in annexure 'A' to the writ application. The writ petition accordingly stands rejected without any order as to costs. 9. I wish to record my appreciation of the very able manner in which Mr. Dutt presented the case for the state respondent. Writ petition rejected with no cost.