The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Tamil Nadu Government over its failure to establish an open-air jail despite the land for the project having been identified as far back as 1985, while exploring alternative land options to ensure that the public project is not indefinitely delayed by the dispute concerning land occupied by Shanmugha Arts Science Technology and Research Academy (SASTRA).
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana questioned the State on why it had continued to wait for the disputed land for nearly four decades instead of proceeding with the project at another location.
During the hearing, the State’s counsel submitted that, according to High Court orders, every district was required to have an open-air jail and that the land in question had been identified in 1985 as suitable for the purpose.
The Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, however, questioned the State’s approach.
“
“Since 1985, you have not been able to execute your project. That is the one greatness of the State, that a project which is conceptualised in 1985, you have not executed it, only waiting for this land. Assuming that we were to construct a medical college, forget about medical college, you were to construct a hospital for the poor people in the area, for the rural communities and all the people living there. You will wait for a land issued to the resort for 50 years. We will not construct a hospital.”
The Court then suggested that the State identify another site that would be more suitable for the open-air jail. The court suggested that it may be a site which may be more convenient, more conducive, more suitable for an open jail.
Responding to the suggestion, the State’s counsel submitted that the exercise of identifying alternative land had already been undertaken but several factors had to be considered, including the location, the extent of contiguous land and the nature of the land available. Counsel pointed out that the project was not for a conventional prison but an open-air jail for adolescent prisoners.
The CJI, however, questioned the State’s insistence on the disputed land.
“
“Very strange obstinate attitude of this State. When we ask them to identify the land, you are not accepting that land. When we ask you to identify the land, they will fight for you. You don’t want to identify the land. Because you say everything will happen on this land only.”
During the hearing, counsel also submitted apprehension that an order allowing the present arrangement could potentially become a precedent for future cases of encroachment. Counsel submitted that governments should be able to make it clear that such conduct would not be permitted in the future. The CJI agreed with the concern to an extent, observing that the situation should not become a precedent. The CJI added that the Court would have to ensure that its order did not create such a precedent.
The Bench then examined the options available to resolve the dispute while ensuring that the open-air jail project could proceed. The CJI noted that the university was already operating on substantial land and that the disputed adjoining land had been identified as government land.
The Court noted that the government could not simply treat the disputed government land as an ordinary parcel available at collector rates because it may itself be required for public purposes.
The CJI then outlined possible alternatives, including taking land offered by the university, arranging for fragmented parcels to be made contiguous, or requiring the university to identify and purchase land suitable for its requirements.
“
“That’s why we said two, three options. One, they have some, another adjoining land found by the university, admittedly. They are offering that. If acceptable, the government will take that land. The other way can be, you identify the land of your choice. They will have to pay, whether market price is 10 times more or 5 times more. Because that will be a punitive action also. That will take care of, it will be a penalty, and we will declare it as a penalty. Third thing can be, that you identify the land, they will buy it for you.”
During the hearing, various alternative parcels of land were discussed, including land adjoining the National Highway. The Bench suggested that the State consider acquiring additional adjoining land to create the required contiguous parcel for the open-air jail.
The Court also considered the possibility of requiring SASTRA to bear the cost of acquiring suitable alternative land, depending on the valuation and suitability of the land being offered.
The Bench directed the State to consider the available alternatives and adjourned the matter for four weeks.
The Court ultimately indicated that the State should explore whether a viable alternative site could be identified and return with the details after four weeks.
The Court also emphasised that the purpose of an open-air jail should be kept in mind while selecting the alternative location, including adequate open space and facilities enabling prisoners’ families to stay and prisoners to engage in agricultural and horticultural activities.