The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the Centre's response to applications filed by members and staff of the Delhi Gymkhana Club challenging a show-cause notice proposing their eviction from the club's 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan issued notice to the Centre on the applications seeking a stay on the operation of the eviction notice. The court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that the proceedings before the Estate Officer, scheduled for July 7, are deferred until after the next hearing before the High Court on July 28.
Appearing for the Centre, SG Mehta said the government would file its response to the applications.
Referring to the Estate Officer's hearing fixed for July 7, he said, "They can seek an adjournment there."
Justice Jhingan responded, "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."
The applications have been moved by club member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd Staff Welfare Association as part of their pending challenge to the Land and Development Office's (L&DO) May 22 order terminating the club's perpetual lease.
The L&DO had directed the colonial-era club to hand over possession of the land by June 5, citing the need to strengthen and secure defence infrastructure.
On June 29, the L&DO, functioning under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, issued a show-cause notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, asking the club to explain why an eviction order should not be passed.
Issued by Estate Officer Bipin Kumar Singh, the notice directed the club and all other occupants of the premises to file their replies by July 7 and appear for a personal hearing at 2.30 pm the same day.
The latest development comes over a month after the Centre informed the Delhi High Court on May 26 that it would not take forcible possession of the property by June 5, despite maintaining that the land is required for "strengthening and securing defence infrastructure".
At the time, Mehta had told the court that the government would take possession of the land only in accordance with the procedure established by law.
(With inputs from PTI)