TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 737X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissed the eviction petition. The Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad by its order made on 15.3.1989 in the appeal of the tenant granted eviction of the State from the school building. During pendency of appeal, the respondent/owner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 6487 of 1988 seeking early eviction of the State on the ground that the condition of the building was dangerous for the school. The High Court on 12.8.1988 allowed the Writ Petition and directed the State Government to vacate and hand over the possession of the school building to the owner within a specified period. The period of vacating the building by the State was later on extended upto 30.4.1989 on an alleged undertaking given by the State authorities to deliver the possession before the expiry of the extended period. It is the case of the respondent that only in order to frustrate the decree of eviction and to avoid the delivery of possession of the land and school building to the owner in compliance with the directions made by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 6487 of 1988 and in breach of undertaking given by the State to vacate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri T.V. Ratnam appearing for the State. He submits that acquisition of the school building was necessary to cater to the educational needs of the children living nearby the old city of Hyderabad. It is argued that merely because the State failed in its attempt to successfully oppose the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control and Eviction Act, its independent 'right of eminent domain' was not lost to acquire under due process of law the building for urgent public purpose. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga and Ors. [1952 SCR 889]; Prabodh Sagar vs. Punjab State Electricity Board Ors. [2000 (5) SCC 630] and First Land Acquisition Collector Ors. v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli Anr. [2002 (4) SCC 160]. We have heard reply of learned senior counsel Shri V.R. Reddy appearing for the owner (respondent) of the school building. Strenuous effort is made to support the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It is contended that the most important fact cannot be lost sight of that the school building was not only dilapidated but was found to be in dangerous condition which prompted the Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s authoritative work on Administrative Law [Eighth Edition at pg. 414] based on English decisions and in the context of alleged illegal acquisition proceedings, explains that an action by the State can be described mala fide if it seek to 'acquire land' 'for a purpose not authorised by the Act'. The State, if it wishes to acquire land, should exercise its power bona fide for the statutory purpose and for none other'. The legal malice, therefore, on the part of the State as attributed to it should be understood to mean that the action of the State is not taken bona fide for the purpose of the Land Acquisition Act and it has been taken only to frustrate the favourable decisions obtained by the owner of the property against the State in the eviction and writ proceedings. It is true that the school building is hundred years old. It is in dilapidated condition and at the time, the High Court, in earlier Writ Petition directed the State to deliver the possession of the building, it was found to be in dangerous condition. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the State was running a school in the building since the year 1954. The school is in the heart of the cit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High court of Andhra Pradesh and before this Court is whether the land acquisition proceedings can be held to be actuated by any purpose other than public purpose. From the circumstances placed before us, we do not find that public purpose does not exist for the State to acquire the school premises. The position of the State as a landlord is different from its position as a sovereign State with 'right of eminent domain' over all landed properties. It is obvious that as a tenant the State had several inhibitions in law in effecting substantial repairs to the building or reconstructing it. The landlord in that regard had superior rights in rent legislation. But once the State acquires the school building, it had many options. It can demolish the whole building and reconstruct it. It may effect substantial repairs and alterations to it for making it suitable for continuing the school at the same premises and thus meet the educational needs of the children living in the heart of the city in Hyderabad. We are not at all impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent/owner that as the school building in question does not conform to norms fixed, the State c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is true that the State had not admitted that its officers had encroached upon the respondent'' land and had carried the matter in appeal. The finding of the civil court was that the property belongs to the respondent. The factum of the action under the Act implies admission of the title of the respondent to the extent of land found by the civil court to be an encroachment. Though the State chose to file the appeal which was pending, better judgment appears to have prevailed on the state to resort to the power of eminent domain instead of taking a decision on merits from a Court of Law. In view of the fact that the PWD office building was already constructed and a compound wall was needed to make the building safe and secure and construction was already made, which is a public purpose, the exercise of power of eminent domain is perfectly warranted under law. It can neither be said to be colourable exercise of power nor an arbitrary exercise of power. See also the decision in the case of First Land Acquisition Collector Ors. v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli Anr. [2002 (4) SCC 160]. The relevant part of argument at page 166 para 6 reads thus :- 6. It is indeed diffic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
