STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus GOVERDHANLAL PITTI

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 11-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
GOVERDHANLAL PITTI 
MARCH 11, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Sections 4(1) and 6: 
C 
Sch.ool building in dilapidated condition-~viction of State as tenant 
therefrom-During pendency of appeal, High Court allowed the Writ Petition 
of the landlord directing State Government to evict and hand over possession 
of School building to landlord-State initiating acquisition proceedings-
challenge to-Writ Petition allowed by the Single Judge and affirmed by the 
Division Bench of the High Court holding acquisition proceedings to be 
D malacious in law-On appeal, Held: when eviction order as we/las direction 
to hand over possession of the School pr2mises to its owner was passed by 
the High Court, State was having no other alternative except to initiate 
acquisition proceedings in public interest to serve educational needs of 
children-Hence, State acted reasonably by just exercise of its statutory 
power, can not be condemned for ma la fide exercise of it. 
E 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
"Malacious in fact", "malacious in law" and "right of eminent 
domain "-Meaning in the context of acquisition proceedings -Discussed. 
A school was run by the State in a building owned by the respondent-
landlord, who filed an eviction petition on ground of dilapidated condition of 
the building. Later, Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court granted 
eviction of the State from the School building. During pendency of the appeal, 
writ petition of the landlord seeking early eviction of the State was allowed by 
G the High Court directing the State to vacate and hand over possession of the 
premises within a specified time period. In the meanwhile, State initiated 
acquisition proceedings for acquisition of School building under the provisions 
of Land Acquisition Act. Writ Petition filed by the landlord challenging the 
acquisition proceedings was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court 
and affirmed by the Division Bench holding the acquisition proceedings to be 
H 
908 
-.4 
\ 
-
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHv. GOVERDHANLAL Pim 
909 
malacious in law. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
It was contended for the State that acquisition of the .building was 
necessary to cater to the educational needs of the children; and that right of 
eminent domain of the State to acquire school building for urgent purpose 
was not lost merely on the ground that it could not successfully oppose the 
eviction proceedings under the Rent Control and Eviction Act. 
B 
On behalf of the landlord, it was submitted that State by initiating 
acquisition proceedings to acquire school building, after it had undertaken 
before the High Court to deliver possession of the premises, lacked bonafide 
and attempted to frustrate the decision of the Court; and that the School C 
building did not conform to the norms fixed by the Government itself. 
Therefore, it could not be permitted to acquire ~uch building for the purpose 
of running a school. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The legal meaning of malice is "ill-will or spite towards a D 
party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action". This is 
sometimes described as "malice in fact". "Legal malice" or "malice in law" 
means 'something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, 'it is an act 
done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not 
necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite. Where malice is attributed E 
to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill-will or spite on the part of 
the State. If at all, it is malice in legal sense, it can be described as an act 
which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. The legal malice on the 
part of the State as attributed to it should be understood to mean that ·the action 
of the State is not taken bonafide for the purpose of the Land Acquisition Act F 
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. (914-F, G; 915-A-B] 
Administrative Law by Prof Wade (Eighth Edition, P. 414), referred 
to. 
Words & Phrases Legally defined (Third Edition, Butterworths 1989), 
referred to. 
G 
1.2. The school building is hundred years old. It is in dilapidated 
condition and at the time, the High Court, in earlier Writ Petition directed H 
9i0 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A the State to deliver the poss
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.