A legal battle is unfolding in the Delhi High Court where a member of the prestigious Delhi Gymkhana Club is contesting a government directive to vacate its expansive 27.3-acre property in Lutyens’ Delhi. The suit, filed by longtime club member Vijay Khurana, was brought to attention by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi for an expedited hearing and is expected to be addressed on May 26.
The legal action seeks a judicial declaration and a permanent injunction to prevent the Central government from unilaterally terminating the club’s perpetual leasehold rights. Furthermore, it aims to stop the government from forcibly evicting the club and its members from the historic premises located at 2, Safdarjung Road.
On May 22, the Land and Development Office (L&DO) issued a directive for the club to vacate its premises. This order referenced clause 4 of the original lease agreement, which permits the government to reclaim the land if it is needed for ‘public purposes.’ The government cited the necessity of the land for ‘strengthening and securing defense infrastructure,’ as well as other essential public safety and governance facilities, given its proximity to the Prime Minister’s residence and other high-security areas in Lutyens’ Delhi.
Khurana’s suit challenges these justifications, arguing that the government’s reasons are vague and generalized, lacking specific substantiation. He contends that the government’s actions constitute a sham and that no compensation has been proposed for the loss of property, the premium paid, or the existing structures on the site.
The suit points to a ‘flagrant violation’ of Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. According to Khurana, a letter from December 18, 2009, confirmed that the perpetual lease deed grants proprietary rights to the Gymkhana Club, which cannot be arbitrarily nullified without an acquisition process inclusive of due safeguards and compensation.
More Read
Further, Khurana alleges this action is part of a ‘malicious and colorable exercise,’ viewing it as the latest in a series of government maneuvers to assert control over the club. This includes a recent attempt to take over the club’s management. He argues that the notice constitutes an ‘attempt to effect forced eviction through executive force, administrative fiat, and threat/exercise of police power,’ bypassing the due process of law.
