Supreme Court urges Tamil Nadu to weigh alternative site in SASTRA eviction case

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Tamil Nadu government to examine whether a suitable alternative parcel of land could replace the government land in Thanjavur that SASTRA University is alleged to have encroached upon, rather than proceeding with eviction and demolition.

A three-judge Bench observed that the disputed land was being used by an educational institution serving a public purpose. At one stage, the court questioned why the State was so insistent on eviction and demolition, and suggested that the government could identify an alternative site for its proposed open-air jail, with the university bearing the cost of acquiring it.

The court was hearing a plea by the university against a Madras High Court order of January 9, which had upheld the State government's rejection of its request for assignment or exchange of government land and had directed its eviction.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for SASTRA, submitted that the university had offered three parcels of land to the State. He said the government had appeared to favour a contiguous parcel spanning 86.8 acres but later altered its position.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, for the State government, argued that the alternative parcels were inferior to the disputed land in value, accessibility and contiguity. He said the proposed open-air jail could not be built because of the pending litigation, while the university had continued construction on the encroached land.

The Chief Justice suggested that if the parcels offered by SASTRA were unacceptable, the State could identify land of its choosing and the university could pay its market value. "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," the Chief Justice said.

Mr. Dwivedi responded that such an approach could amount to placing a premium on encroachment.

The Chief Justice noted that the dispute concerned an educational institution. "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," the CJI said.

The State government was granted an adjournment to seek instructions on the suggestions made by the court.