SANJAY YADAV, J.

In Writ Appeal No. 292/2017:

This intra Court appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the order dated 11-5-2017 passed in W.P. No. 1554/2010.

2. The writ petition by the petitioner was directed against the notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh under section 4 read with section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “1894 Act”) for acquisition of the land bearing Survey No. 456 ad-measuring 2 bigha and 4 biswa (0.460 hectare) situated at Patwari Halka No. 42 Mahalgaon, Tahsil and District Gwalior. The challenge was on the ground that the same is issued mala fidely to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of a decree and is in flagrant violation of the provisions contained under section 4(1) and 17(1) and 17(4) of 1894 Act; and that, no public interest is involved. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order negatived all the contentions and dismissed the petition.

3. Relevant facts leading to the controversy are that land in question was declared surplus by the competent authority under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act of 1976 (for brevity “1976 Act”) by order dated 22-4-1983. This order came to be challenged in Appeal on the ground that the Authority concerned was not competent. The appeal was dismissed. Where against Writ Petition M.P. No. 135/1990 was allowed on 30-11-1994. The entire proceedings were quashed. However, during the interregnum period is from 22-4-1983 vesting of land with the State and the order passed in writ petition. The State Government treating the land being vested in it had constructed the hostel over the land in question for SC/ST students. That the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 20A/1995 for declaration, possession and mesne profit. The suit was decreed on 4-1-2003. Where against First Appeal No. 176/2003 was dismissed on 17-10-2006. That the order dated 30-11-1994 passed in M.P. No. 135/1990 was challenged by the State of M.P. before Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed in 6-2-2009 and the Review Petition was dismissed on 18-2-2010. That in the meantime the decree in the civil suit was put to execution wherein the respondent State deposited Rs. 5 Crores towards the cost of land and Rs. 12 Lakhs towards the mesne profit. It appears from the record that the matter was sought to be resolved as the State Government having constructed the hostel made effort to retain the same. As the matter could not settle the State Government taking into consideration the public interest involved invoked the urgency clause and issued notification under section 4(1) read with section 17(1) and 17(4) of 1894 Act. It was this notification which was challenged in the writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

4. Reiterating the contention raised before the Writ Court it is urged that the Writ Court has grossly erred in negativing the challenge. The respondents in their turn have supported the order passed by the Writ Court.

5. Considered the rival submissions.

6. First contention is that the State and its functionaries have acted mala fidely by issuing notification to deprive the petitioner to hold the property in question being its lawful owner as declared by the Court of law. Trite it is that where malice is attributed to the State its not a case of personal ill will on the part of State, if at all it is described as an act taken with an oblique motive as observed in State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739, wherein it is held :

12. The legal meaning of malice is “ill-will or spite towards a 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 feelin