The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Centre to respond to petitions filed by a club member and employees’ association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club challenging the June 29 show-cause notice by the Estate Officer of the L&DO, asking the club and all its occupants to explain why eviction proceedings should not be initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The notice had directed the club to submit its response by 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan issued notice to the Central government on applications, one by club member Vijay Khurana and another by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Staff Welfare Association, seeking a stay on the execution of the show-cause notice. He directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that Tuesday’s hearing before the Estate Officer is adjourned to a date after the next hearing in the case on July 28. Mr. Mehta said the Centre would file its response to the applications.
Earlier order
The pleas form part of their pending petition arising from the L&DO’s May 22 order terminating the perpetual lease deed and directing the historic club to return the land by June 5, stating that the land was required for strengthening defence infrastructure and other public purposes.
On May 26, the Centre informed the High Court that it would not take forcible possession of the property by June 5 while maintaining that the land is needed to “strengthen and secure defence infrastructure and vital public security purposes”.
The Solicitor General had said that the Centre would take over the land only “in accordance with procedure established by law” and after serving a notice. Following this, Estate Officer Bipin Kumar Singh issued a notice to the club on June 29, in which he cited Clause 4 of the Perpetual Lease Deed, stating that L&DO “expressly reserves power in favour of the lessor to resume and re-enter upon the premises whenever the same are required for public purpose”.
In his pending suit, Mr. Khurana has questioned the legality of the government’s decision to terminate the club’s nearly century-old perpetual lease.
He has argued that the Centre’s claims regarding defence infrastructure are “vague and unsupported”. He has also alleged that the action amounts to an attempt to evict the club without following the due legal process.
Alternatively, he sought a direction to the Estate Officer not to pass any final order under the Public Premises Act or take any coercive or dispossessory step.
