Delhi HC defers Gymkhana Club eviction matter, seeks centre’s reply

The Delhi High Court sought the Centre’s response to pleas challenging the eviction notice issued to Delhi Gymkhana Club and directed that proceedings before the Estate Officer be deferred. The matter has been listed for hearing on July 28

New Delhi: No effective hearing is likely to happen on Tuesday before the Centre’s Estate Office dealing with the issue of eviction of Delhi Gymkhana Club from its premises on Safdarjung Road here, with the Delhi High Court deciding to hear the matter on July 28.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan on Monday sought the stand of the Centre on pleas by Delhi Gymkhana Club members and staff against the show-cause notice for eviction from the 27.3-acre facility and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that the July 7 hearing before the Estate Officer is adjourned to a day after the next date of hearing.

---

Justice Jhingan issued notice to the central government on applications seeking a stay on the operation of the show-cause notice, and granted it time to file its reply.

SG Mehta said the Centre would file its response to the applications. Noting that a hearing before the Estate Officer was scheduled for July 7, the senior law office added, “They can seek an adjournment there.” Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the plaintiff, urged the court to give a short date in the matter.

“Mr Mehta, we are keeping this for the date already fixed (in the main case). Just see it (Estate Officer’s hearing) is adjourned beyond that date,” Justice Jhingan said.

The pleas by Vijay Khurana and Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association form part of their pending lawsuit following the Land and Development Office’s (L&DO) May 22 order terminating the perpetual lease deed and asking the colonial-era club to return its land by June 5 on grounds of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.

On June 29, the L&DO under the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry issued the show-cause notice to the club, asking it to explain why an eviction order should not be passed against it under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

The notice, issued by Estate Officer Bipin Kumar Singh, directed the club and all persons concerned occupying the premises to submit their response by July 7 and appear for a personal hearing on the same day at 2.30 pm.

The move came more than a month after the Centre told the Delhi High Court on May 26 that it would not take forceful possession of the 27.3-acre premises by June 5.

Mehta had then said that the Centre would take over the club’s land in accordance with the procedure established by law. Vijay Khurana, a Gymkhana Club member, has said in his lawsuit that the vague and generalised reasons of defence infrastructure and security given by the Centre were just a “sham”.

The move, he claimed, was an “attempt to effect forced eviction” instead of following the due process of law. Khurana’s lawsuit is stated to be supported by more than 500 members of the club.

On May 26, the court observed that at that stage, there was nothing on record to suggest that authorities had initiated legal action for eviction and therefore no interim order was required on the lawsuits by the Gymkhana members and staff.

In his latest application, Khurana said the June 29 notice proceeds on “entirely erroneous and premature assumptions”, which strike at the substratum of their pending lawsuit.

The application said the show-cause notice was “premature” as it wrongly presumed that the Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease was validly terminated.

It said the notice’s continued operation would render the lawsuit infructuous, especially when the High Court had earlier observed that the question of valid termination would be determined at an appropriate stage.

Besides a stay order, the application sought a direction for maintaining status quo on possession, occupation, user, and functioning of the club.

Alternatively, it sought a direction that the estate officer may not pass any final order under the Public Premises Act or take any coercive or dispossessory step. It also sought permission to file replies and participate in the proceedings before the estate officer.