Delhi High Court continued protection for Delhi Gymkhana Club while the Estate Officer’s jurisdiction remained under consideration

The Delhi High Court on Thursday indicated that the Estate Officer under the Public Premises law should first consider whether it ought to proceed with the notice issued against the Delhi Gymkhana Club while the question of his jurisdiction remains pending before the Court.

The Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan hearing the dispute adjourned the matter to enable counsel appearing for the Gymkhana members to obtain instructions on whether they could consent to the Estate Officer first examining the jurisdictional objection before taking further steps against the Club.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the Delhi Gymkhana Club Staff Welfare Association, submitted that any response to or appearance before the Estate Officer would be without prejudice to the Club’s fundamental objection regarding jurisdiction.

Singhvi also pointed out that the pending suit, in its present form, does not directly concern the Public Premises proceedings.

The Court noted that the proceedings had initially involved a notice of re-entry, followed by an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At that stage, a statement had been made that the parties would proceed in accordance with law.

The Court observed that the subsequent proceedings before the Estate Officer were now being relied upon as a change in circumstances to seek reconsideration of the earlier interim arrangement.

Rather than deciding the issue at this stage, the Court proposed giving the Estate Officer an opportunity to apply his mind to whether the proceedings should continue when the question of jurisdiction itself is pending consideration before the High Court.

The Bench further made it clear that the Club should not be prejudiced merely because it responds to the notice or appears before the authority. The objection regarding jurisdiction would remain open.

The matter was accordingly adjourned to enable counsel to obtain instructions.

The Court also indicated that no coercive action would be taken in the interregnum and that the existing protection in favour of the Club would continue until the next date of hearing.

Background

Notably, on May 26, the High Court had refused to grant interim relief to the Delhi Gymkhana Club in its challenge against the Centre’s move directing the Club to vacate its premises by June 5, after the Union government assured the Court that no possession would be taken except in accordance with law.

The dispute arises from an order issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, whereby the Centre has invoked Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed executed in favour of the erstwhile Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. The clause permits re-entry and termination of lease if the premises are required for public purpose.

The government has asserted that the property, situated in a strategically sensitive zone of the national capital, is required for strengthening and securing defence infrastructure as well as other public security-related uses. The order states that the entire 27.3-acre parcel, including all buildings, lawns, structures and fittings, shall vest in the President of India through the L&DO upon re-entry and resumption of possession. The Centre has further maintained that the decision is driven by urgent public interest considerations linked to national security and integrated governance infrastructure in adjoining government land areas within Lutyens’ Delhi.

Challenging the move, the Gymkhana Club has argued that the order would result in abrupt disruption of its functioning and cause large-scale dislocation of members and staff. The Club has stated that it currently has around 14,000 members and engages more than 500 employees, many of whom depend on the institution for their livelihood. The Club has also pointed out that it is presently being managed by a General Committee appointed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs pursuant to proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). According to the Club, this committee is functioning as a transitional arrangement pending the constitution of an elected governing body.

In its communication to the authorities, the Club has requested that there should be no immediate dislocation of its operations until pending issues are resolved. It has also highlighted improvements in its financial condition and administrative functioning in recent years, asserting that the institution has stabilised after earlier regulatory intervention. The Club has further submitted that if relocation is eventually considered necessary, the government should explore allotment of alternative land for continuity of its activities and preservation of its institutional structure.

The Centre’s order, issued through the L&DO, underscores that the premises are located in a “highly sensitive and strategic area” and are required for defence and public interest purposes. It maintains that the re-entry and resumption action is legally permissible under the terms of the lease agreement.

Case Title: Vijay Khurana v. Union of India and connected matters

Bench: Justice Avneesh Jhingan

Hearing Date: September 3, 2026

Tags: