Supreme Court asks Tamil Nadu government to consider alternative site rather than evicting SASTRA varsity

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 21, 2026) asked the Tamil Nadu government to explore if suitable alternative land was acceptable in lieu of government land allegedly encroached upon by SASTRA University in Thanjavur.

A three-judge Bench said the land in dispute was used by an educational institution serving a public purpose. The court, at one point, asked why the State government was so “obstinate” on eviction and demolition of the institution.

The Bench said the State government could identify an alternative site for its proposed open-air jail and have the university bear the cost of it.

The court was hearing SASTRA University’s plea against a Madras High Court order of January 9. The High Court had upheld 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 land to the State government. He said the State government seemed to be in favour of a contiguous parcel of land spanning 86.8 acres, but later changed its position.

Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the State government, said the alternate parcels were inferior to the disputed land in terms of value, accessibility, and contiguity. He said that the State government’s proposed open-air jail could not be constructed 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 government 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.

Mr. Dwivedi said that such an approach could amount to putting a premium on encroachment.

The Chief Justice said 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.

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