Madras High Court Upholds Eviction of SASTRA University from Encroached Government Land

In a decisive judgment echoing the necessity of reclaiming public property, the Madras High Court has dismissed a long-standing challenge by the Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA) Deemed University. The division bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan, ordered the immediate eviction of the university from government-owned land that it has occupied for over three decades.

A Three-Decade Legal Marathon

The dispute dates back to 1985 when the university allegedly encroached upon approximately 31.37 acres of land in Thirumalaisamuthiram village, Thanjavur district. This land had been earmarked by the government for the establishment of an Open Air Jail. For thirty years, the university has utilized various legal avenues to delay the inevitable, leading the court to label the current proceedings as yet another instance of "re-litigation."

Despite numerous judicial interventions—including a majority ruling from a previous bench ordering eviction—the university persisted in filing representations, banking on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to seek "appropriate remedies" under the law. The government, however, remained steadfast in its commitment to utilize the site for a prison facility, maintaining that such public infrastructure projects cannot be stalled by private interests.

The Conflict of Interests

The university, represented by senior counsel, argued that their institution contributes significantly to public education and that they had offered to exchange the encroached parcel for other, potentially more valuable, land. They claimed that the government’s refusal to assign the land was discriminatory, pointing to instances where similar institutions had received favorable treatment.

In response, the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, appearing for the state, maintained that land assignment is not a matter of right. He emphasized that the government had consistently rejected the university's offers to swap land since 2002. With the government now passing policy decisions to build a full-scale prison at the location, the encroached land is no longer an optional asset but a requirement for public safety and administration.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling left little room for further delay, emphasizing the court's role in protecting public interests:

• On the nature of re-litigation: "The petitioner University, by virtue of its status as an Institution was able to litigate and re-litigate the same issues again and again for the past about 30 years and increased the longevity of litigations."
• On the lack of legal right: "Assignment of an encroached land cannot be claimed as an absolute right by encroachers. Accepting an alternate proposal is discretion of the Government."
• On judicial interference: "When the Government took a decision to develop... 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."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Dismissing the writ petitions, the court characterized the university's repetitive litigation tactics as a potential "miscarriage of justice." The bench directed the authorities to execute the eviction notice dated February 25, 2022, within four weeks, explicitly granting them the power to utilize police assistance if necessary to clear the land.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that institutions of higher learning do not possess immunity from land encroachment laws. By prioritizing the state's mandate to establish prison facilities over the convenience of a private entity, the High Court has reinforced the principle that public land belongs to the public, and its conversion to private use—regardless of the cause—remains inherently legally precarious. The matter is scheduled to be reviewed on February 18, 2026, for a compliance report.