'Can't Pave Way For Encroachers': Madras High Court Upholds Eviction Of SASTRA University From Govt Land Earmarked For Prison
Upasana Sajeev
14 Jan 2026 5:47 PM IST
The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, challenging a government order that refused an alternate land offered by the University for setting up a prison and a subsequent eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan noted that the government had decided to develop a prison in the government land where the university was encroaching.
The court also noted that the issues involved in the plea had already been litigated and the court could not interfere with the policy decision of the government by paving way for encroachers to re-litigate the issue.
“Government lands are public lands. Public rights are to be protected by the Constitutional Courts. When the Government took a decision to develop originally an Open Air Jail and presently, a Prison in the Government land and Government orders have been issued, there is no reason for the Court to interfere with the policy decision by paving way for encroachers to re-litigate the issue or to continue to possess the encroached public lands. In any angle, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief,” the court said.
The university had encroached on Government land measuring 31.37 acres situated in Thirumalaisamuthiram Village, Thanjavur District in the year 1985. 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 proveedings 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 Commissiner 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 in the present plea.
The university argued that the claim of similarly placed educational institutions were considered by the government and the lands were assigned in their favour but the case of the university alone was rejected, despite the fact that they were running an educational institution. It was also submitted that the university had offered an alternate land which was more valuable than that of the Government land under occupation and this request should have been considered by the government positively.
The government, on the other hand, argued that all the grounds raised by the University had been adjudicated in the earlier rounds of litigations. It was submitted that the encroached portion of the land was required for establishing the prison and it was a policy decision taken by the Government for which Government Orders had also been issued. It was submitted that unless encroachment was removed, the lands under possession of the government were insufficient for completing the prison project. The government also argued that assignment in favour of other institution would not confer any right on the University to claim assignment.
The court observed that university had been re-litigating the same issue for the past 30 years because of which the government was unable to implement the public purpose project. The court further observed that if such re-litigations are encouraged by the court, no quietus can be given to the issues and it would ultimately result in miscarriage of justice.
Noting that the government had rightly issued eviction notice, the court dismissed the plea and directed the State to act upon the eviction notice by evicting the encroachers with the assistance of police, if required within four weeks.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel For M/s. G. R. Associates, Mr. P. H. Aravind Pandian, Senior Counsel For Mr. B. Amrith Bhargav
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. P. S. Raman, Advocate General Assisted by Mr. D. Ravichander Spl. Govt. Pleader
Case Title: SASTRA Deemed University v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 33
Case No: W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022