Delhi Gymkhana Eviction Row: Delhi High Court Adjourns Hearing For September 3
The Delhi High Court refused to grant a long adjournment in the Delhi Gymkhana Club matter, directed expeditious completion of pleadings, continued the existing interim protection, and listed the case for hearing on September 3
Delhi High Court directed the parties in the Delhi Gymkhana Club case to complete pleadings expeditiously and fixed the next hearing for September 4
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined adjourned the ongoing Delhi Gymkhana Club matter for hearing on September 3, directing that pleadings be completed expeditiously after being informed that the counter affidavit had been filed only late last night.
JusticeAvneesh Jhingan was informed by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing in the matter, that the counter affidavit had been filed late on Monday night.
Taking note of the submission, the Court deferred the proceedings. The Court directed all parties to complete their pleadings without delay and listed the matter for further hearing on September 3.
The Bench also ordered that the existing protection and assurance operating in the connected proceedings would continue until the next date of hearing.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for one of the petitioner and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Central Government.
The matter will now be taken up on September 3.
Notably, on May 26, the High Court had refused to grant interim relief to the Delhi Gymkhana Club in its challenge against the Centre’s move directing the Club to vacate its premises by June 5, after the Union government assured the Court that no possession would be taken except in accordance with law.
The dispute arises from an order issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, whereby the Centre has invoked Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed executed in favour of the erstwhile Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. The clause permits re-entry and termination of lease if the premises are required for public purpose.
The government has asserted that the property, situated in a strategically sensitive zone of the national capital, is required for strengthening and securing defence infrastructure as well as other public security-related uses. The order states that the entire 27.3-acre parcel, including all buildings, lawns, structures and fittings, shall vest in the President of India through the L&DO upon re-entry and resumption of possession. The Centre has further maintained that the decision is driven by urgent public interest considerations linked to national security and integrated governance infrastructure in adjoining government land areas within Lutyens’ Delhi.
Challenging the move, the Gymkhana Club has argued that the order would result in abrupt disruption of its functioning and cause large-scale dislocation of members and staff. The Club has stated that it currently has around 14,000 members and engages more than 500 employees, many of whom depend on the institution for their livelihood. The Club has also pointed out that it is presently being managed by a General Committee appointed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs pursuant to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). According to the Club, this committee is functioning as a transitional arrangement pending the constitution of an elected governing body.
In its communication to the authorities, the Club has requested that there should be no immediate dislocation of its operations until pending issues are resolved. It has also highlighted improvements in its financial condition and administrative functioning in recent years, asserting that the institution has stabilised after earlier regulatory intervention. The Club has further submitted that if relocation is eventually considered necessary, the government should explore allotment of alternative land for continuity of its activities and preservation of its institutional structure.
The Centre’s order, issued through the L&DO, underscores that the premises are located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” and are required for defence and public interest purposes. It maintains that the re-entry and resumption action is legally permissible under the terms of the lease agreement.
Case Title: Vijay Khurana v. Union of India and connected matters
Bench: Justice Avneesh Jhingan
