2026:MHC:122W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 06.01.2026

Pronounced on 09.01.2026

C O R A M

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022 and

W.M.P.Nos.7019 and 7025 of 2022

W.P.No.6989 of 2022

1.Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology &

Research Academy (SASTRA) Deemed University,

Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur - 613 402

Having Office at No.5, Subbarayan Nagar Main Street,

Chennai – 600 024.

2.VEE SEE BEE Trust Administering

Shanmugha Poly-Technic, having its Office

No.5, Subbarayan Nagar Main Street,

Chennai – 600 024, Rep by its Trustee ... Petitioners/Petitioners

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep by its secretary to Government,

Revenue Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Special commissioner and Commissioner of

Land Administration, Ezhilagam,

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The District Collector,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

1/18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

4.The District Revenue Officer,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

6.The Tahsildar,

Thanjavur - 613 001. ... Respondents/Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue

a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to order

passed by the 1

st

respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 84 (Revenue and Disaster

Management Department Land Decisions NM 6-2 Division) dated

23.02.2022, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to

consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2018 and for their

representation dated 27.09.2021 and 22.10.2021 in accordance with law

and the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.D.No.33230 of 2018

dated 14.09.2018.

For Petitioners: Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel

For M/s.G.R.Associates

For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General

Assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander

Spl. Govt. Pleader

W.P.No.6993 of 2022

1.Shanmugha Arts, Science Technology &

Research Academy (SASTRA) Deemed University,

Thirumalaisamudram, Thanjavur - 613 402

Having Office at No.5, Subbarayan Nagar Main Street,

Chennai – 600 024. Rep. by its Registrar.

2.VEE SEE BEE Trust Administering

Shanmugha Poly-Technic, having its Office

No.5, Subbarayan Nagar Main Street,

Chennai – 600 024, Rep by its Trustee ... Petitioners/Petitioners

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

-vs-

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,

Rep by its secretary to Government,

Revenue Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Special commissioner and Commissioner of

Land Administration, Ezhilagam,

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The District Collector,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

4.The District Revenue Officer,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

6.The Tahsildar,

Thanjavur - 613 001. ... Respondents/Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue

a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Eviction Notice

issued by the 6

th

respondent dated 25.02.2022 in R.C.No.19205/2003/B5

and quash the same.

For Petitioners: Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian,

Senior Counsel

For Mr.B.Amrith Bhargav

For Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General

Assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander

Spl. Govt. Pleader

*****

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

C O M M O N O R D E R

(By.S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.,)

Present Writ Petitions are third round of litigations by the

petitioners. Longevity of these re-litigations is about 30 years. Issues are

already adjudicated and reached finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India. Thus, it would suffice to consider the correctness of the impugned

Government Orders passed, reiterating the earlier decisions to evict the

encroachers from the Government land, allotted for construction of a

Prison.

2. W.P.No.6989 of 2022 has been instituted, challenging

G.O.Ms.No.84 (Revenue and Disaster Management Department Land

Decisions NM 6-2 Division) dated 23.02.2022. W.P.No.6993 of 2022 has

been filed, challenging the consequential Eviction Notice issued by the

Tahsildar, Thanjavur dated 25.02.2022 in R.C.No.19205/2003/B5. Further

directions are sought for to consider the representation submitted by the

petitioner on 20.09.2018 and on subsequent dates.

History of the Case:

3.1. The petitioners have encroached upon the Government

land measuring about [12.70.50 Hectares (31.37 Acres)], situated in

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

R.S.Nos.140, 141, 148 and others in Thirumalaisamuthiram Village,

Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District in the year 1985. The said Government

land was allotted to the Prison Department of Government of Tamil Nadu

for establishing an Open Air Jail. On account of encroachment made by

the petitioner University, the Prison Department was unable to develop

Open Air Jail in the allotted land.

3.2. Eviction proceedings had been initiated by the

jurisdictional Tahsildar, Thanjavur under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short ‘Act, 1905’). Final Notice under

Section 6 was issued, following the judgments delivered in W.P.Nos.14718

and 14719 of 1998 dated 13.07.1998. Opportunities were provided to the

petitioner University for voluntary eviction of the superstructure made by

the petitioner in Government lands. Challenging the notice issued under

Section 6 of the Act, W.P.Nos.9287 and 9292 of 1999 were filed and the

said Writ Petitions were dismissed, granting liberty to the petitioner

University to file statutory appeals under Section 10 of the Act, 1905.

Petitioner filed statutory appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Thanjavur on 28.06.1999, which was dismissed vide order dated

15.10.1999. The said order was taken by way of Review Petition before

the District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur on 18.11.1999. The matter was

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

remitted back to the Tahsildar, Thanjavur for fresh enquiry on 03.01.2000.

After conducting due enquiry, the Tahsildar dismissed the petition filed by

the petitioner University. Again, the petitioner University filed an appeal

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thanjavur, which was dismissed on

26.06.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the

District Revenue Officer, Thanjavur, which was also dismissed on

26.12.2000 under the provisions of the Act, 1905.

3.3. A second review before the Special Commissioner and

Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai was filed and an interim

order was passed. Meanwhile, the Writ Petitioner filed a petition to the

Government for assignment of encroached land. Government rejected the

request in its Letter dated 19.12.2002 and ordered for eviction of

encroachments. Lease rent was also ordered to be collected for the period

of encroachment. The Revision Petition filed before the Commissioner of

Land Administration was dismissed on 01.03.2004.

3.4. Pertinently, beyond the statutory frame work, appeals,

review after reviews were entertained and all the petitions were dismissed

at various levels. Finally, challenging the order of the Commissioner of

Land Administration, writ petition in W.P.No.9037 of 2004 was filed and an

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

interim stay was granted. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction

to assign the encroached land to the petitioner University.

3.5. The Government preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1451 of

2015. Two Hon'ble Judges passed differing Judgements on 11.08.2017. In

the lead judgment, a direction was issued to the Government to consider

the Government orders passed in respect to other educational institutions

and take an appropriate decision. In the dissenting decision, the order

passed in the writ petition was set side and the Government was directed

to evict the petitioner from the encroached lands within a period of 4

weeks. The third Hon’ble Judge concurred with the dissenting judgment

and held that the University enjoyed 20.62 acres of lands for the past more

than 30 years without paying single naya paise for such occupation.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Third Judge concurred with the dissenting

judgment. The majority Judgment directed the Revenue Department to

evict the petitioner from the encroached premises in four weeks’ time. In

order to comply with the time-bound order, notice dated 25.09.2018 was

issued to voluntarily vacate the encroached Government land within one

month. The request of the petitioner University offering an alternate land in

lieu of the encroached portion of the land was repeatedly rejected right

from the initial stage.

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

3.6. The petitioner preferred SLP No.33230 of 2018 and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed the following order:

“We do not find any good and legal ground warranting

interference with the impugned order (s) in exercise of our

jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The special leave petition(s) is accordingly dismissed.

However, dismissal of this special leave petition(s) shall

not be an impediment for the petitioners to seek appropriate

remedy, if any available under the law, before the appropriate

forum.

We express no opinion on such application, if any, filed

by the petitioners in this regard and the same shall be

considered and decided on its own merits and in accordance

with law.”

3.7. The petitioner University once again submitted a

representation based on the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India, seeking assignment of land by offering an alternate land nearby

the University belonging to the writ petitioner University. The Government

rejected the said request of the petitioner in G.O.No.84 of Revenue and

Disaster Management Department dated 23.02.2022 (impugned order).

The Government has considered the representation of the petitioner

University for assignment, alienation or exchange and rejected already

vide the Government Letter No. 541, Revenue Department dated

19.12.2002, G.O. (Ms) No. 313, Revenue and Disaster Management

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

Department L.D 5(2) dated 27.09.2017 and finally, in the present

impugned order in G.O. (Permanent) No.84 of Revenue and Disaster

Management Department dated 23.02.2022.

Contentions of Writ Petitioners:

4. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

petitioners in W.P.No.6989 of 2022 would mainly contend that the

impugned Government Order is not in accordance with the directives of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. While dismissing the SLP, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate

remedy before the appropriate forum. Based on the liberty, representations

were submitted. However, it was not decided on its own merits. Contrarily,

the respondents have reiterated their earlier decisions, which is erroneous.

The claim of similarly placed Educational Institutions were considered by

the Government and lands were assigned in their favour. Even recently in

the case of Chettinadu Cements, the Government assigned the lands. The

case of the writ petitioners alone is rejected, despite the fact that they are

running an Educational Institution and imparting education to the people of

that locality. Certain courses are conducted at free of cost to poor

students. All these aspects were not taken into consideration by the

Government. A portion of the encroached land is said to be a waterbody

and no Open Air Jail Project is implemented. The petitioner University has

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

offered an alternate land to a larger extent and more valuable than that of

the Government land under occupation of the petitioner. Therefore, the

Government ought to have considered the request of the petitioner

University positively.

5. Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for petitioners in W.P.No.6993 of 2022 would contend in addition that

Eviction Notice is perverse and the reasonable request made by the

petitioner University ought to have been considered on par with few other

Educational Institutions in favour of whom Government lands are

assigned. The petitioner University alone is discriminated without

considering the fact that they are running Educational Institutions. That

apart, the Government has not considered the proposal of the petitioner

offering an alternate land, which is of more valuable and larger in extent.

The reasons stated in the impugned Government order and the

consequential Eviction Notice are based on the judgments of the High

Court and there is no independent consideration of merits raised by the

petitioners that has been undertaken. Thus, the case of the petitioner is to

be re-considered by the Government.

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

Contention of the Government:

6. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General appearing on

behalf of the State would submit that present litigations are re-litigations

and all the grounds raised by the petitioners herein had been adjudicated

during earlier rounds of litigations. The Division Bench of the Madras High

Court delivered differing judgments and the Hon’ble Third Judge concurred

with the dissenting judgment. In result, the majority judgment is to evict the

petitioners from the Government land, which is allotted to Prison

Department for establishing Open Air Jail. The Government has issued

orders for establishing a Jail in the adjacent vacant land belonging to the

Government in G.O.(Ms) No.615, Home (Prison-V) Department dated

05.12.2025. Therefore, encroached portion of the land is also required for

establishing Prison in the said location. Instead of Open Air Jail, the

Government took a decision to establish a Prison and a policy decision

has been taken and Government Orders issued. Unless encroachments

are removed, lands under possession of the Government are insufficient

for completing the Prison project. Therefore, the Government has taken a

decision consciously not to assign the land in favour of the petitioner

University.

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

6.1. He would further submit that it is a policy decision and the

petitioner cannot claim assignment of land as a matter of right and granting

assignment in favour of one Institution would not confer any right to claim

assignment by any other Institutions. Each case has been decided by the

Government independently on facts and the requirement of the

Government land for the public purpose. There is no obligation on the part

of the State to assign the land to the petitioner Institution. They are having

sufficient land in the adjacent location and there may not be any difficulty

for the petitioner to run the Institution by the petitioner University in their

own adjacent lands. They themselves offered to give their own adjacent

lands in lieu of the encroached land, which would be evident that the

petitioner University can develop their Institution in their own adjacent land.

Thus, the offer made by the petitioner was repeatedly rejected right from

the initial stage from the year 2002 onwards and at least three rejection

orders were passed by the Government in 2002, 2017 and 2022 (the

present impugned order). When the Government has consistently rejected

the request of the petitioner to assign the Government land and took a

policy decision to develop a Prison in the said land and Government order

has been passed, the present writ petitions are re-litigations and not

maintainable. The Government is bound to implement the majority

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

judgment of the High Court of Madras, which was confirmed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6.2. Based on the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the petitioner University re-litigated the same issue in the present

writ petitions. Liberty granted by the Supreme Court is clear that the

petitioner University may seek appropriate remedy, if any available under

Law. Further, the Supreme Court clarified that if any application is filed, the

same shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law. First of

all, the Government has rejected the request of the petitioners on several

occasions from the year 2002 onwards. Therefore, no application is

maintainable before the Government to re-adjudicate the issue, which has

attained finality. However, in view of the liberty granted, the Government

has considered the very same grounds raised by the petitioners regarding

grant of assignment or to accept the alternate land, passed the impugned

order. Therefore, the present writ petitions are liable to be rejected.

Findings:

7. The history of the case as narrated above would be

sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the present writ petitions are re-

litigations and the issues raised in the present writ petitions were

elaborately adjudicated on earlier occasions by the High Court. The

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

majority judgment of the High Court was confirmed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. The Division Bench of Madras High Court in

W.A.No.1451 of 2015 passed differing Judgements on 11.08.2017 and the

majority judgment in the said writ appeal is to evict the petitioner University

from the Government land and utilize the land for public purposes for

establishing an Open Air Jail. The Government took a policy decision to

establish a Jail in the said location by evicting encroachers, and utilize the

lands along with adjacent Government lands. In view of the policy decision

of Government to establish a Prison in that location, once again the

request of the petitioner was rejected on the same line, reiterating the

earlier decisions of the Government. Assignment of an encroached land

cannot be claimed as an absolute right by encroachers. Accepting an

alternate proposal is discretion of the Government. Government has taken

a decision mainly on the ground that in the encroached portion along with

adjacent Government lands are to be utilized for establishing Prison and

Orders have been passed. Under these circumstances, the petitioners

have not established even a semblance of legal right for the purpose of

sustaining their request either before the Government, or before this Court.

8. The petitioner University, by virtue of its status as an

Institution was able to litigate and re-litigate the same issues again and

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

again for the past about 30 years and increased the longevity of litigations.

The Government is unable to implement public purpose project for the past

more than three decades on account of continuous litigations raised by the

writ petitioners.

9. Assignment of land available to any other Institution cannot

be a ground to seek assignment by the petitioner University in respect of

the subject Government land under encroachment, which is earmarked for

establishing a Prison by the Government. The entire arguments advanced

on behalf of the petitioner University were already adjudicated elaborately

on earlier litigations and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the

SLP filed by the petitioner University. Taking lien on the liberty granted by

the Supreme Court to file a representation, once again the petitioner

University re-opened the litigative process in the year 2022 and

successfully prolonged the same for about three years. Such tactics

adopted, by re-litigating the same issue, if encouraged by the Courts, no

quietus can be given to the issues and ultimately would result in

miscarriage of justice.

10. Government lands are public lands. Public rights are to be

protected by the Constitutional Courts. When the Government took a

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

decision to develop originally an Open Air Jail and presently, 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 by paving way

for encroachers to re-litigate the issue or to continue to possess the

encroached public lands. In any angle, the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief. The Government has rightly issued the Eviction Notice in

Proceedings dated 25.02.2022 to evict the petitioner University within a

period of four weeks. Now that three years have lapsed from the date of

Eviction Notice.

11. In view of the above findings, the respondents are directed

to act upon the impugned Eviction Notice dated 25.02.2022 by evicting the

encroachers, if required, with the assistance of Police within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Consequently, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

List these matters before this Bench for reporting compliance

on 18.02.2026.

[S.M.S,J.,] [C.K,J.,]

09.01.2026

Index: Yes

Internet: Yes

ar

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

To:

1.The Secretary to Government,

State of Tamil Nadu,

Revenue Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Special commissioner and Commissioner of

Land Administration, Ezhilagam,

Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

3.The District Collector,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

4.The District Revenue Officer,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

5.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

6.The Tahsildar,

Thanjavur - 613 001.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

ar

Pre-Delivery Orders in

W.P.Nos.6989 and 6993 of 2022

1/2

09.01.2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis