( 1 ) THE question involved in this Writ Petition is whether the exercise of power under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ) with a view to scuttle the Civil Court decree can be said to be maln fide exercise of power.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of a building No. 13-1-1238, situated at Seetaram Bagh, Hyderabad. He had leased it out to the Government for the purpose of establishing a School in 1954. The said building is 100 years old. When the petitioner wanted the Government to vacate the building as the building is in dilapidated condition for effecting repairs, the Government refused to vacate the same. Further the Government has not paid the rent also. Therefore, the petitioner filed RC No. 195/77 on the file of the Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The said RC was dismissed on 15-12-1979 against which RA No. 76 of 1980 was filed on the file of the Court of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Small Causes, Hyderabad. The said RA was allowed on 15-3-1989 and thus the order in appeal has become final.

( 3 ) BEFORE the orders could be passed in R. A. 76/80, since the building was about to collapse, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 6487/88 for eviction. The said writ Petition was allowed on 12-8-1988 directing the Government to vacate the building and handover the possession within a particular period. The government did not hand over the possession of the building but filed WPMP no. 19786 of 1988 seeking extension of time for vacating the building. This court extended the time up to 30-4-1989. The judgmentin the said Writ Petition has become final. Meanwhile as pointed out earlier the Civil Court passed the eviction order on 15-3-1989. Pursuant to the orders in the Rent Appeal and in the Writ Petition the Government have to vacate the building and hand over the possession on or before 30-4-1989. Instead of handing over the possession of the building in compliance with the orders of the Courts, the government invoked the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act on 26-4-1989 acquiring the building for public purpose. Aggrieved by the said Notification, the present Writ petition is filed.

( 4 ) THE Writ Petition was admitted and pending disposal of the Writ Petitionstatus quo as to the possession was granted.

( 5 ) SINCE there is no stay of further proceedings, the Government issueddeclaration under Section 6 of the Act on 24-4-1990 and thereafter the award proceedings were initiated and an Award was passed under Section 12 (2) of the Act on 6-5-1992. In the said Award, an amount of Rs. 2,60,968-68 was determined as compensation and the said compensation amount was received by the petitioner on 20-6-1992 by a Cheque No. 106920, dated 19-6-1992. The petitioner also sought for enhancement of compensation under Sec. 18 of the act.

( 6 ) FROM the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner succeeded both before the Rent Control Authorities and also in the Writ Petition before the High Court. Both the Civil Court as well as the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India directed the Government to vacate the building and hand over the possession to the petitioner. Instead of complying with the above Orders, the Government invoked the proceedings under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 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. The exercise of power under Section 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 power under Section 4 (1) of the Act cannot be exercised to thwart a valid decree passed by the Civil Court.

( 7 ) THE argument of the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisitionis that the petitioner has participated in the Award proceedings and also received the compensation