Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court, noting that the government land allegedly encroached upon by SASTRA University has been used for establishing an educational institution, today asked the State of Tamil Nadu to explore whether alternate land could be accepted in lieu of the disputed land.

The Court termed the State's demand to evict them as "obstinate", and prodded it to accept the offer of alternate land to set up its open jail project.

During the hearing, the Court stressed the need to balance equities, observing that it would have "thrown out" the encroacher had the land been used for commercial purposes rather than a public purpose such as providing education. The Court also questioned the State's failure to implement the open-air jail project since 1985 merely because the land earmarked for the project had become embroiled in litigation.

As the State of Tamil Nadu stressed that the alternate lands being offered were not up to the mark, and the Court said that the University would pay for any comparable land acceptable to the State, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi (for TN) sought time to come back with instructions. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the University's plea against the Madras High Court order which dismissed its petition challenging the government's refusal of an offer of alternate land for setting up a prison, and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur. The High Court order was stayed by the Supreme Court in January. 

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, for SASTRA, submitted that the petitioner had offered 3 alternate lands to the State, but not received any effective response. Though the State had initially expressed inclination for the third piece of land (contiguous; measuring 86.8 acres), subsequently it changed its stance. 

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and Addl Advocate General Haripriya Padmanabhan, for the State, submitted that the open-air jail could not be set up due to the pendency of the litigation and the University carried out further construction even during pendency of the case. They further claimed that the land being offered was not as valuable as the land 'grabbed' by the petitioner, besides being fragmented. The third piece of land offered (measuring 86.8 acres) was stated to be at a distance from the main highway, with narrow accessibility. 

Hearing the submissions, CJI Kant suggested that if the alternative lands were not acceptable, the State could consider taking in exchange the market value of the subject land. "If the market price comes to you, you buy the land of your choice. Or you identify the land, we will tell them to buy the land for you", CJI said to Dwivedi. 

The CJI further asked whether the "agenda" of the State was merely to dispossess the petitioner, or it had certain public interest in mind. "Let's take it they are encroachers in unauthorized possession. One way is to dispossess them. Another way is to ask them to pay today's market price. [Third way is] You can identify the land, they will pay the price". 

Dwivedi responded that the Court's approach may amount to "putting premium" on encroachments. He further questioned maintainability of the petition, pointing out that the petitioner had lost multiple rounds of litigation earlier, even upto the Supreme Court. The CJI then replied that the court intended to pass an order which would deter encroachments, but at the same time, it was concerned about balancing the equities. 

"If someone was running a resort there, or running a commercial complex, or having a shopping mall there, or having immoral or illegal activity there, we would have thrown them out. If the land is being used by a University for academic purposes, providing quality education in the state, that is the only factor [weighing] in our mind and that's the only reason we want them to pay the price...we were thinking of something that will send a very strong message to everyone and at the same time, we will save an institute because that is serving the public", CJI said. 

When Dwivedi persisted, the CJI remarked that the bench was becoming more concerned about what was going in the mind of the State. "Since 1985, you have not been able to execute your project. That is one greatness of the state that a project which is conceptualized in 1985, it has not executed it only waiting for this land", the CJI said. 

Dwivedi replied that there was a Court stay prevailing on the subject land, but the CJI retorted, "What prevented you from implementing your project somewhere else? We are more examining the conduct of the state. Assuming you were to construct a hospital for poor people in the area, you will wait for a land issue to be resolved for 50 years? You will not construct the hospital? This is your State obligation? Your one land has come under litigation. You will defer the project endlessly? Will you not look for another site and construct the hospital?".

The CJI also remarked that the State was exhibiting a very strange and obstinate attitude, whereas the Court had expected it to come forward gracefully with an option where the State would not have to suffer loss of even a single penny or an inch of land. The judge further questioned how many States, including Tamil Nadu, had fulfilled the obligations under the Right to Education Act. When AAG Padmanabhan submitted that Tamil Nadu spends Rs.45000 crores every year on school education and is "on the top", the CJI exclaimed, 

"So should we take it that education institutions are in surplus in State of Tamil Nadu and its children, young generation does not require good quality education?" 

Considering what was falling from the bench, Dwivedi argued that this was a case of land-grabbing and the petitioner-University could have been constructed on the land which was now being offered against the government land encroached upon. Miffed by the State's stance, the CJI noted that the State was insisting on a recourse which would involve demolishing a constructed building, whereas it needed only open land (which was being offered). 

"A process where demolition and then reconstruction involved...you are happy with that. A process which gives you an opportunity because you want to establish an open jail, you require open land only. And that is not acceptable. We are only now [weighing] and comparing the conduct of the state also. We are not condoning their misconduct...you are unhappy in leaving that land and taking that open land though you require open land only. You don't require a constructed building. That is something very surprising!"

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, also for the State, subsequently submitted that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. He also averred that if this course is allowed, the order may become a precedent and another encroacher in future may rely on it to avoid consequences. "We agree with you that this should not become a bad precedent. If becomes our duty how we pass the order, what kind of expression we use, that this should become a precedent", CJI replied.

The CJI further said that even if the market price is 5 or even 10 times more, the petitioner may be asked to pay that for an alternate land of the State's choosing, as the same would amount to a punitive action in form of a penalty "so that message goes to all encroachers". 

On Gupta's submission that a contiguous land of 54 acres was required (as per the proposed project), but one of the alternative sites offered measured only 32 acres, CJI said, "on those norms, nothing should be compromised. If you need 52 acres land, you identify the land. They will purchase it for you. There cannot be any question of compromising with your norms or public utility. You need land for a public project which is equally important. Open jail is a part of jail reforms."

At one point, Dwivedi also underlined that all the contentions were raised before the Supreme Court in 2018, but the University's plea was dismissed. He further averred that the 2022 policy on exchange of land was not applicable to the petitioner, as it was an "encroacher". AAG Padmanabhan added that the title of the subject land was not in dispute in this case, as the petitioner had lost the case over title upto the Supreme Court stage. 

Notably, CJI also told the State to identify an alternate land which was not adjacent to the subject land, so that open air prison is not set up in close proximity to the University. "Don't bring them adjoining to an educational institute- that would be our first advice to you. Identify a good site, which is accessible, where you can have scattered residential units also...there is no question of frustrating such a public purpose", CJI commented, while adding that the state can consider an alternate land of 60 acres and need not confine to 54 acres. 

Background 

Apparently, the university encroached on Government land measuring 31.37 acres situated in Thirumalaisamuthiram Village, Thanjavur District. The land was government land allotted to the Prison Department of Government for establishing an open air jail. However, since the University was encroaching on the land, the prison department could not develop the open air jail.

The Government then initiated eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Final notice was issued and opportunity was provided to the university to voluntarily evict the superstructure made by it in the Government land.

The university challenged the eviction proceedings through writ proceedings which were dismissed, granting liberty to the university to file statutory appeal under the Act. Following this, the university filed statutory appeal before the RDO, Thanjavur which was dismissed. A review petition was filed before the District Revenue Officer where the matter was remitted back to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry. After enquiry, the Tahsildar dismissed the plea. An appeal against the plea was also dismissed. The second review before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration was also dismissed.

The university also initiated writ proceedings, in which a direction was issued to assign the encroached land to the University. The government preferred an appeal wherein the Revenue Department was directed to evict the university from the encroached premises. The university's request offering an alternate land in lieu of the encroached portion of the land was rejected. Though the university preferred an SLP, it was dismissed granting liberty to the university to seek appropriate remedy before appropriate forum.

Based on this liberty, the University again submitted a representation to the State requesting an alternate land. This request was rejected, and an eviction notice was issued which was challenged before the High Court. 

Case Details :SHANMUGHA ARTS SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH ACADEMY (SASTRA) v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU | SLP(C) No. 2359-2360/2026

Tags: