Public purpose sustains school land acquisition: prior eviction proceedings did not make the exercise colourable in law.

State acquisition of a school building and appurtenant land was upheld because the real and operative purpose was a genuine public purpose, namely continued educational use of the site. Legal malice in this context requires action without lawful excuse or for a purpose foreign to the statute, and the challenge failed because the prior eviction proceedings and undertaking to vacate supplied a proximate reason for acquisition. Earlier inaction in acquiring the property, the temporary shifting of the school, and norms for new school buildings did not displace the public purpose behind the acquisition. The acquisition was not colourable or mala fide in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquisition of the school building and appurtenant land was vitiated as a colourable exercise of power or malice in law, and whether the existence of a public purpose justified the acquisition.

Analysis: The acquisition was challenged on the ground that it was initiated to defeat eviction proceedings and an undertaking to vacate the premises. The Court held that legal malice in this context means action taken without lawful excuse or for a purpose foreign to the statute. It found that the State had been running the school at the site since 1954, the building served educational needs in the old city, and the prior eviction and vacate orders furnished a proximate cause for resorting to acquisition. The mere fact that the State had earlier not initiated acquisition proceedings, or that the school had later been shifted temporarily, did not negate the genuine public purpose behind acquisition. The norms for new school buildings were held irrelevant to the existing structure.

Conclusion: The acquisition was not mala fide or colourable in law, and it was supported by a genuine public purpose. The challenge to the acquisition failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment quashing the acquisition could not be sustained, and the State's acquisition proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Acquisition by the State is valid when the real and operative purpose is a genuine public purpose, and it cannot be struck down as malafide merely because it was initiated after adverse eviction orders, unless the acquisition is shown to be a camouflage for an ulterior purpose foreign to the statute.

---