Introduction:

The Madras High Court, while deciding the writ petitions filed by Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA), a deemed university, against the State of Tamil Nadu and revenue authorities, examined the legality of a Government Order rejecting the University’s offer of alternate land in lieu of encroached government land earmarked for construction of a prison, and also examined the validity of an eviction notice issued by the Tahsildar, Thanjavur, where the Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan was called upon to determine whether a long-standing encroacher on public land could seek equitable relief by offering substitute land and whether courts could interfere with a clear governmental policy decision to utilize land for a public purpose like establishment of a prison, especially after decades of repeated litigation on the same subject; the Court traced the history of the dispute and noted that the University had encroached upon about 31.37 acres of government land in Thirumalaisamuthiram Village as early as 1985, which land had already been allotted to the Prison Department for establishing an Open Air Jail, but due to the encroachment the prison project could not be implemented, following which eviction proceedings were initiated under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and though the University was repeatedly granted opportunities to contest the action through statutory appeals, reviews, and multiple writ proceedings, every forum ultimately rejected the claim, yet the University continued to litigate on similar grounds, thereby preventing execution of the public project.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The University contended that it was running an educational institution and that similarly placed educational institutions had earlier been granted assignment of government land by the State, and therefore denial of similar benefit to the University amounted to discrimination, it was further argued that the University had offered alternate land which was more valuable and suitable than the encroached land and that such an offer should have been considered positively by the Government in the interest of promoting education, it was also contended that rejection of the alternate land proposal was arbitrary and unreasonable, and that eviction would adversely affect academic activities and infrastructure, thus causing hardship to students and faculty, the University attempted to portray the dispute as one involving equitable balancing between public interest in education and governmental land use policies, and asserted that its offer of land exchange would not prejudice the State but rather benefit it.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The State, represented by the Advocate General, submitted that the entire controversy had already been adjudicated multiple times by statutory authorities, the High Court, and even up to the Supreme Court, and that the present petitions were nothing but an attempt to re-litigate settled issues, it was argued that government land is public property and cannot be bartered away merely because an encroacher later offers alternative land, especially when the land is specifically required for a public purpose such as construction of a prison, it was emphasized that Government Orders had already been issued for establishing the prison and that unless encroachments were removed, the available land was insufficient to complete the project, the State further argued that assignments made to other institutions in different factual contexts could not confer any enforceable right on the University, and equality cannot be claimed in illegality, the respondents also stressed that judicial interference in policy matters of land utilization would undermine executive authority and public planning.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench firmly rejected the plea of the University, holding that government lands are public lands held in trust for the people and that constitutional courts are duty-bound to protect public property from encroachment, the Court observed that the petitioner had been re-litigating the same issue for nearly three decades and had succeeded in delaying the prison project meant for public safety and administration of justice, it held that courts cannot permit encroachers to perpetuate illegal possession by repeatedly approaching courts on slightly modified grounds, the Bench categorically ruled that once the Government has taken a conscious policy decision supported by Government Orders to utilize land for a public project, courts cannot interfere merely because an encroacher offers alternate land, the Court emphasized that acceptance of such offers would set a dangerous precedent allowing powerful institutions to negotiate retention of public land by proposing substitutes, thereby undermining rule of law and land governance, the Court further held that past assignments to other institutions cannot be used as a ground to compel similar treatment, especially when present land is required for a specific statutory and administrative purpose, the doctrine of finality of litigation and principles against abuse of process were strongly invoked, with the Court observing that endless litigation erodes faith in justice delivery and results in miscarriage of justice by stalling public projects, the Bench concluded that the eviction notice was lawful, justified, and long overdue, and directed the State to execute eviction within four weeks with police assistance if required, thereby affirming that no equitable relief can flow from illegal occupation of public land, and that courts must act firmly when public interest is obstructed by private encroachment.