The Centre has told the Delhi High Court that the court has no legal power to stop the government from taking over the Delhi Gymkhana Club land after the club’s perpetual lease was terminated and a show-cause notice for eviction was issued by the Estate Officer.
In its reply to an application by club member Vijay Khurana seeking a stay on the notice, the government said the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in eviction matters and also prohibits any injunction against action taken by the Estate Officer.
On Tuesday, Justice Avneesh Jhingan posted Khurana’s suit and a similar suit by the club’s staff for hearing on September 3 after their senior counsel said the reply had been received late the previous night and a rejoinder would be filed.
When the plaintiffs’ senior counsel sought a clarification on whether the Centre’s earlier assurance of seeking an adjournment before the Estate Officer would continue in the meantime, the court said, “obviously”.
In its reply, the Centre said the PP Act has its own adjudicatory and appellate machinery, and Khurana’s application was liable to be dismissed as misconceived, misplaced and barred by law, particularly because the Estate Officer’s competence to issue the show-cause notice could not be disputed.
“The proper remedy for the grievance sought to be litigated by injunction is participation in the hearing before the Estate Officer itself, where all grounds, including the challenge to the validity of determination, may be raised and must be considered. The present Application, which seeks precisely such an injunction restraining the Estate Officer from proceeding with the SCN, falls squarely within the express prohibition (under the PP Act),” the reply said.
The Centre further said, “The lease dated 28.02.1928 stands validly determined by notice dated 22.05.2026 under Clause 4 thereof, and Defendant No. 2’s continued occupation though lawful at inception has…ceased to be authorised within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the PP Act.”
It added, “It follows a fortiori that any injunction restraining the Estate Officer from proceeding under Section 4 pursuant to the SCN dated June 29 would impermissibly impact this statutory vested right of the Answering Defendant, and the present Application is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.”
In the response filed through standing counsel Ashish Dixit, the Centre also said this was not a case of “compulsory acquisition” because the perpetual lease itself “expressly and unambiguously” reserved the government’s right to determine the agreement and re-enter the premises for a “public purpose”.
It said that since the lease deed was a bilateral instrument between the Centre and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd, a member who was neither a party to nor privy to the agreement could not independently restrain the authorities from exercising their contractual rights. “It is not for the applicant, a club member with no independent stake in the public project, to demand disclosure of security and defence considerations underlying the governmental decision at this interlocutory stage,” the response said.
The Centre also said it was fully prepared to discharge its “compensation obligations” under the lease deed upon taking possession.
A similar reply was filed to an application by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association, which has also sought a stay on the show-cause notice. The pleas by Khurana and the staff association are part of their pending suits filed after the Land and Development Office’s May 22 order terminating the perpetual lease deed and directing the colonial-era club to hand back the land by June 5 on the ground of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
On June 29, the L&DO under the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry issued a show-cause notice asking the club to explain why an eviction order should not be passed under the PP Act. The notice, issued by Estate Officer Bipin Kumar Singh, asked the club and all persons occupying the premises to respond by July 7 and appear for a personal hearing on the same day at 2:30 pm.
This came more than a month after the Centre had told the high court on May 26 that it would not take forceful possession of the 27.3-acre premises by June 5, though it said the land was required for “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
Khurana has said in his suit that the Centre’s reasons linked to defence infrastructure and security were vague and generalised and were a “sham”. He claimed the move was an “attempt to effect forced eviction” instead of following due process of law. His suit is said to be backed by more than 500 club members.
On May 26, the court had observed that there was then nothing on record to show that the authorities had started legal action for eviction, and therefore no interim order was required on the suits filed by the Gymkhana members and staff.
In his latest application, Khurana said the June 29 notice proceeds on “entirely erroneous and premature assumptions” that strike at the basis of the pending suit. He said the notice was “pre-mature” because it wrongly presumed that the Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease had been validly terminated.
He also said the continued operation of the notice would render the suit infructuous, especially when the high court had earlier said that the question of valid termination would be decided at an appropriate stage. Along with a stay, he sought an order to maintain the status quo on possession, occupation, use and functioning of the club, or alternatively, a direction that the Estate Officer should not pass any final order under the PP Act or take any coercive or dispossessory step, while allowing the petitioners to file replies and take part in the proceedings.
The matter will now come up on September 3, with the Centre maintaining that the eviction process must continue under the PP Act and the petitioners pressing their challenge to the show-cause notice and the termination of the lease.
– Ends
Published By:
India Today Web Desk
Published On:
Jul 28, 2026 21:21 IST
