New Delhi, Sep 21 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Tamil Nadu government to explore whether suitable alternative land could be accepted in lieu of 31.37 acres of government land allegedly encroached upon by SASTRA University in Thanjavur.
Observing that the land parcel has been used for an educational institution serving a public purpose, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also questioned the state’s insistence on eviction and demolition of the institution.
The bench indicated that the state could identify an alternative site for its proposed open-air jail and have the university bear the cost of acquiring comparable land.
The bench’s observations came during the hearing of SASTRA University’s plea challenging the Madras High Court’s January 9 order upholding the state government’s rejection of its request for assignment or exchange of government land and directing its eviction.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for SASTRA, told the court that the university had offered three parcels of alternative land to the state government but had not received an effective response.
He said the state had initially shown an inclination towards a contiguous parcel measuring 86.8 acres but later changed its position.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the state government, said that the alternate parcels were inferior to the disputed land in terms of value, accessibility and contiguity.
He also said that the state’s proposed open-air jail project could not be implemented because of the pending litigation, while the university had continued construction on the encroached land.
The CJI suggested that if the alternative parcels offered by SASTRA were not acceptable, the state could identify land of its choice 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 CJI said.
Dwivedi said that such an approach could amount to putting a premium on encroachment.
The bench, however, said it was conscious of the need to ensure that its order did not encourage encroachments and was examining how the equities could be balanced in the particular circumstances of the case.
The CJI said the situation would have been different had the disputed land been used for a commercial establishment rather than for education.
“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,” he said.
The CJI said that the university’s use of the land for academic purposes and providing education was a factor the bench was taking into consideration.
The bench also questioned why the state had not implemented its open-air jail project, which was conceptualised in 1985, at an alternative location merely because the land earmarked for it had become embroiled in litigation.
“What prevented you from implementing your project somewhere else?” the CJI asked.
The bench also questioned the state’s insistence on eviction and demolition when the proposed prison project required open land and the university had offered alternative parcels.
The CJI described the state’s approach as “strange and obstinate”, while stressing that the court was not condoning the university’s alleged encroachment.
“We are not condoning their misconduct,” the CJI said, adding that the bench was also examining the conduct of the state and the implications of demolishing existing structures when an alternative site could serve the same public purpose.
The CJI said the bench would frame its order in a manner that would ensure the decision did not become a precedent for encouraging encroachments.
He also suggested that the university could potentially be required to pay substantially more than the market value of the disputed land as a punitive measure.
“If the market price is five or even 10 times more, the petitioner may be asked to pay that for an alternate land of the State’s choosing,” the CJI said.
“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,” he said.
The bench also advised the state not to select an alternative site immediately adjacent to the university.
It suggested that the government identify a suitable and accessible location where the requirements of the proposed facility, including scattered residential units, could be accommodated.
Dwivedi sought time to obtain instructions from the state government on the court’s suggestions.
The matter was adjourned.
On January 15, the bench had stayed a Madras High Court direction ordering the eviction of Shanmugha Arts, Science, Technology & Research Academy (SASTRA) from government land in Thanjavur, saying the Tamil Nadu government should not make a dispute of a “prestige issue”.
SASTRA is a prominent private deemed university in Thanjavur’s Thirumalaisamudram. PTI SJK PKS SJK KVK KVK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.