2003 (3) TMI 737 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the acquisition of the school building by the State.
2. Allegation of "malice in law" in the acquisition process.
3. Public purpose and necessity of the acquisition.
4. Compliance with norms for setting up a school.
5. Impact of shifting the school to an alternative site.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Acquisition:
The State of Andhra Pradesh and its Authorities appealed against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which upheld the Single Judge's order quashing the acquisition of a school building. The High Court concluded that the acquisition was "malicious in law."

2. Allegation of "Malice in Law":
The High Court found that the State's action to acquire the school building was to circumvent eviction orders and was not bona fide. The Single Judge noted, "The exercise of power u/s 4(1) of the Act is not fair and it is only to scuttle a valid decree passed by the Civil Court which amounts to 'malice in law'." The Division Bench agreed, stating, "Acquisition suffers from lack of bona fides and is only an arbitrary act and an attempt to undo the consequences of the judicial decision."

3. Public Purpose and Necessity of the Acquisition:
The State argued that the acquisition was necessary to cater to the educational needs of children in the old city of Hyderabad. The Supreme Court noted that the school had been serving public interest since 1954 and that the State's "right of eminent domain" was not lost despite the eviction proceedings. The Court stated, "The order of eviction as well as the direction to vacate issued by the High Court only provide just, reasonable and proximate cause for resorting to acquisition."

4. Compliance with Norms for Setting Up a School:
The respondent argued that the school building did not conform to the norms fixed by the Urban Development Authorities. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating, "Norms, if any, fixed by the Urban Development Authorities can be insisted upon for proposed new school buildings in the newly developed areas."

5. Impact of Shifting the School to an Alternative Site:
The respondent contended that since the school had already been shifted to an alternative site, the acquisition was unnecessary. The Supreme Court rejected this, noting that the building was in a dangerous condition and shifting was a temporary measure. The Court concluded, "On this ground, however, it cannot be held that the public purpose for acquiring the building no longer exists."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that the acquisition was justified and not malicious in law, emphasizing the State's right of eminent domain and the public purpose served by the school. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.