Gymkhana member moves Delhi HC against Centre's takeover notice, alleges 'forced eviction', arbitrary exercise of power

Alleging that the Centre is attempting to forcibly evict Delhi Gymkhana Club from its historic Safdarjung Road premises through an executive notice without due process, a member of the Club has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the government's move to take over the 27.3-acre property. The suit claims that the Union Government's May 22 notice invoking the re-entry clause under the 1928 perpetual lease deed is based on "vague and generalised" references to "defence infrastructure", "public security purposes" and "governance infrastructure" without disclosing any specific public project, urgency, assessment or material justifying repossession of the property.

Filed by longtime member Vijay Khurana, the plaint further alleges that the government has not offered any compensation for the land, premium paid, or the buildings and structures standing on the premises, despite seeking to extinguish century-old leasehold and proprietary rights. The suit also accuses the Centre of attempting to effect "forced eviction through executive force, administrative fiat and threat/exercise of police power" instead of following due process of law.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Monday mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan seeking urgent listing of the suit. The Court agreed to hear the matter on Tuesday. The civil suit has been filed against the Union of India through the Land & Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, along with Delhi Gymkhana Club Limited.

The matter is expected to witness a high-profile contest before the Delhi High Court, with the legal team for the Centre and respondent authorities likely to be led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit. According to the plaint, the Centre directed the Club to hand over possession of the entire property by June 5, 2026, after invoking Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed dated February 28, 1928, which permits re-entry for a "public purpose".

However, the plaintiff contends that the notice neither identifies any concrete public purpose nor discloses any material demonstrating the necessity of repossession. "The invocation of Clause 4 is entirely mechanical, unsupported by particulars and reflective of complete non-application of mind," the suit states.

The plaint further claims that the government has created an "artificial urgency" by directing surrender of possession within fifteen days despite not alleging any breach, misuse or violation of the lease deed by the Club. According to the suit, more than 500 members support the legal challenge and are similarly affected by the impugned action.

The plaintiff has argued that the action violates Article 300A of the Constitution, contending that property rights cannot be extinguished merely through an executive notice without authority of law, fairness, hearing and compensation. The suit places considerable reliance on a December 18, 2009, communication allegedly issued by the L&DO, wherein the government withdrew an earlier re-entry order and recorded that the Club's "ownership and titles stand restored".

According to the plaint, the government's own conduct over decades, including acceptance of rent and other charges, recognition of the Club's institutional rights, and proceedings initiated under the Companies Act, demonstrates acknowledgement of the Club's continuing leasehold and proprietary interests over the property. The suit further alleges that the impugned notice is "the last in a series of acts" aimed at assuming control over the institution and its assets.

Referring to proceedings initiated in 2020 under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Club, the plaint states that administrators/directors appointed through NCLT and NCLAT proceedings effectively brought the Club's affairs under substantial governmental influence. The plaintiff has contended that the present attempt to take over the property forms part of a continuing effort to secure complete control over the institution.

The suit also argues that an admitted perpetual lease cannot be terminated through executive force or self-help eviction and that any alleged right of re-entry can only be enforced through proper civil proceedings. "Clause 4 does not authorise forcible takeover, police-assisted dispossession or extra-judicial eviction," the plaint states.

Describing Delhi Gymkhana Club as one of India's oldest sporting and social institutions, the suit notes that the Club has functioned from the Safdarjung Road premises for over a century pursuant to the perpetual lease granted in 1928. It further states that members have invested substantial resources over decades in the development, maintenance and modernisation of internationally recognised sporting and recreational infrastructure on the property.

Seeking urgent interim protection, the plaintiff has told the High Court that dispossession before adjudication of the dispute would cause irreversible and irreparable injury to the Club and its members. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)