All posts tagged: eviction proceedings

Centre begins fresh eviction process against Delhi Gymkhana Club

Centre begins fresh eviction process against Delhi Gymkhana Club

The Centre has initiated fresh eviction proceedings against the Delhi Gymkhana Club in Lutyens’ Delhi by issuing a show-cause notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 barely a month after assuring the Delhi High Court that any eviction would be carried out only in accordance with law and after prior notice. The matter is now scheduled to be heard on July 28. The government says the lease ended on May 22 and the club is in unauthorised occupation, citing public purpose and governance infrastructure needs. (Sonu Mehta/HT) A member of the legal team representing the club told HT on Wednesday that the fresh notice, issued on June 29, would be challenged before the high court. Officials of the Union ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA), under which the Land and Development Office (L&DO) and Directorate of Estates function, did not respond to requests for comment. In the latest notice, a club representative has been asked to appear before the estate officer on or before July 7 and explain why eviction …

Resume Delhi Race Club eviction proceedings: Delhi HC

Resume Delhi Race Club eviction proceedings: Delhi HC

A division bench of the Delhi high court on Tuesday ordered the resumption of eviction proceedings initiated by the estate officer against the 53.4-acre Delhi Race Club. Resume Delhi Race Club eviction proceedings: Delhi HC A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia observed that the single judge’s April 24 order, which restrained the estate officer from proceeding pursuant to the April 17, 2026, showcause notice issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (PP Act), was passed without assigning reasons, even for the namesake. The showcause notice required the club to explain why an eviction order should not be passed regarding the public premises it occupied. In the 34-page verdict, the judges noted that while the single judge discussed the respective cases of the parties, the order merely stated that the matter required consideration, given the chequered history of the litigation and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, before granting interim protection without further reasoning. The bench held that such a course was impermissible because the interim …