The Centre informed Delhi High Court on Tuesday that it would not take forcible possession of the Delhi Gymkhana Club on June 5, by when the establishment had been asked to vacate its premises in Lutyens’ Delhi.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the central government, said eviction proceedings would only be initiated in accordance with the law and after giving due notice.
“June 5 is the date that we have set as an option for the lessee to vacate on its own. Unlike the popular belief, which is doing the rounds in media circles, it is not that the police will rush in and take forcible possession. It will have to be taken over in accordance with the procedure established by law,” he submitted.
Mehta added that compensation in this case could either be in terms of money or the government could offer an alternative plot of land.
Following the submission, Justice Avneesh Jhingan said no interim direction was required on the lawsuits filed by members and staff of the club against the Centre’s May 22 order terminating the perpetual lease of the 27.3-acre plot of the century-old elite institution. The judge posted the matter for further hearing at the end of July.
On May 22, an order issued by the land and development office under the Union housing and urban affairs ministry had asked the Delhi Gymkhana Club to return its land by June 5 on grounds of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.
The court observed on Tuesday that at this stage, there was nothing on record to suggest that authorities had initiated legal action for eviction.
“The issue (of eviction) is premature and presumptive. If need so arises, the plaintiffs can avail themselves of the remedies in accordance with the law,” Justice Jhingan stated.
“Taking into account the summons issued and the statement made by the solicitor-general, no further interim directions are called for. The statement is to the effect that for eviction, if so to be done, will be in accordance with the law with prior notice,” he added.
The court also issued summons to the Centre and the club’s management on the lawsuits by Gymkhana members, the staff as well as the last elected governing body, and sought written statements from the defendants within eight weeks.
It dispelled the plaintiffs’ apprehension that the club’s governing body, which has nominees of the Centre, might be “hand-in-glove” with the authorities and could, therefore, hand over possession of the premises to the government.
The apprehension appeared contrary to the solicitor-general’s assertion that the governing body had already written to the authorities to raise their grievances, the judge said.
The court said in its order that the locus of the plaintiffs to file the lawsuits and the requirement to give prior notice for termination of the lease deed would be considered at an appropriate stage.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gymkhana members, urged the court to pass an order to restrain the authorities from taking any further action in the matter.
He contended that the Centre’s decision to terminate the perpetual lease deed — executed in 1928 — lacked a real or genuine “public purpose”, was against Article 300A of the Constitution and was silent on the issue of compensation.
Article 300A states that “persons are not to be deprived of property save by authority of law”.
Singhvi added that since the club was being run by nominees of the central government, the members were constrained to approach the high court for relief.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the club’s last elected body, said it was not a case of unauthorised occupation. A showcause notice for eviction cannot be given after the government has already re-entered the premises, he argued.
Mehta accused the plaintiffs of “creating a ghost”. He said there cannot be any eviction by force, and any action must be in accordance with the process prescribed in law.
Vijay Khurana, a Gymkhana member and one of the plaintiffs, has said in his plea that the “vague and generalised reasons” of defence infrastructure and security given by the Centre were just a “sham”. The move, he said, was an “attempt to effect forced eviction” instead of following the due process of law.
His lawsuit is stated to be supported by over 500 other members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club.
Club member Shivam Bhatia said the court proceedings had made it clear that there would be no sudden eviction or forcible entry into the premises.
“The solicitor-general himself submitted that due process of law has to be followed, and there will be no forcible entry or eviction from the club. Whatever happens now will happen legally and after proper notice,” Bhatia said.
“It is a 113-year-old institution. There are members who are above 90, ex-servicemen and nearly 600 workers dependent on the club for their livelihood. A 13-day notice like this had caused enormous concern among members and staff,” he said.
Asked about the June 5 deadline mentioned in the government’s notice, Bhatia said: “As of now, no eviction or evacuation is taking place on June 5.”
Another member, Major Atul Dev (retd), said the members now had time to prepare their legal case properly.
Member Suresh Goyal said the court proceedings had brought temporary relief, but uncertainty over the club’s future remained.
“The immediate concern was that members and staff could face sudden eviction within days. After today’s hearing, there is reassurance that no abrupt action will be taken and that the matter will now be decided through proper legal channels,” the member said.
Additional reporting by PTI