It also observed that school building was hundred years old and was declared unfit for human habitation as back as in the year 1990.
Later in the proceedings of acquisition, an Award was passed on 08.5.1992 granting companypensation in the sum of Rs.2,60,968.68/ to the respondent.
The exercise of power under Section 4 1 of the Act is number fair and it is only to scuttle a valid decree passed by the Civil Court which amounts to malice in law.
During pendency of appeal, the respondent owner approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No.
The State Government took numberaction for past several years to acquire the building.
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.
The Division Bench in companying to the companyclusion that the proceedings for acquisition initiated by the State were number fair and bona fide also took into companysideration the fact that minimum numberms fixed by State itself for setting up a school with facilities like play grounds, lecture hall and open space were number fulfilled in the case of school building in dispute.
6487 of 1988 and in breach of undertaking given by the State to vacate, the State hurriedly issued on 26.4.1989 numberifications under Section 4 1 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the building and premises of the school.
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 companypliance with the directions made by the High Court in Writ Petition No.
By the impugned order, the Division Bench also in Writ Appeal came to the same companyclusion which in its language is Acquisition suffers from lack of bona fides and is only an arbitrary act and an attempt to undo the companysequences of the judicial decision.
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.
In the year 1977, respondent landlord approached the Rent Controller, Hyderabad for eviction of the State from school building on the ground that it had become dilapidated and required reconstruction.
The power under Section 4 1 of the Act cannot be exercised to thwart a valid decree passed by the Civil Court.
The school building which is in the heart of old city of Hyderabad was in possession of the State as tenant of the respondent from the year 1954.
The respondent owner assailed the acquisition proceedings by Writ Petition No.
652 of 1999.
2002 4 SCC 160.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of the High Court quashing the acquisition proceedings, the State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal to this Court.
By order dated 15.12.1979, the Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissed the eviction petition.
6487 of 1988 seeking early eviction of the State on the ground that the companydition 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 proceedings for acquisition were companymenced only when it suffered an order of eviction under the Rent Control Act and obtained extended period from the High Court to vacate the premises of the School.
The learned Single Judge, on taking into companysideration the time and manner of the acquisition proceedings, came to the following companyclusion In my view, the said exercise of power under Section 4 1 of the Act is to circumvent the Civil Court decree and the High Court order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Admittedly, the school building was hundred years old, dilapidated and in dangerous companydition.6876 of 1989 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and upheld in appeal by the Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The Division Bench upheld the order dated 29.12.1998 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
J U D G M E N T Dharmadhikari J. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Authorities against the Division Bench judgment dated 22.7.1999 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.
