Udit Raj’s Wife Challenges Eviction From Pandara Park Bungalow, Delhi Court Sets Next Hearing for Nov 12
Delhi court adjourned Seema Raj’s appeal against eviction from Pandara Park bungalow; Directorate of Estates said premises already vacated
Delhi Court Defers Seema Raj’s Eviction Appeal After Government Says Pandara Park Bungalow Vacated
A Delhi Court on Tuesday adjourned to November 12 the hearing of an appeal filed by Seema Raj, wife of Congress leader and former MP Udit Raj, challenging her eviction from a government bungalow in Pandara Park.
The matter was being heard under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna of Patiala House Court noted that the appellant’s counsel had sought additional time to file an appropriate application in the case.
The Directorate of Estates, appearing for the government, filed a “vacation report” before the court, stating that the property in question had already been vacated. “Vacation report is also filed on behalf of the respondent (Directorate of Estate) to inform this court that the premises has already been got vacated from the appellant (Seema Raj),” the Court recorded.
Accordingly, the court adjourned the proceedings, observing, “Counsel for the appellant seeks time to move appropriate application. Put up on November 12 for further proceedings.”
The dispute concerns the Pandara Park government bungalow allotted to Seema Raj, a retired IRS officer. On October 24, Congress leader Udit Raj alleged that authorities forcibly evicted his family from the residence despite the case being sub judice.
The eviction proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises Act, which empowers authorities to remove unauthorised occupants from government-allotted accommodations. The Directorate of Estates had earlier issued notices seeking vacation of the premises, following which the matter reached the court.
In a related news, in June, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court had declined to take cognisance of a chargesheet filed against Congress leader Udit Raj in connection with a protest held outside former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence, citing lack of evidence regarding his knowledge of a prohibitory order and absence of proof of identity in the video footage. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal had observed that the prosecution failed to establish that Raj was aware of the prohibitory order allegedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The case pertains to a protest led by Raj on January 20, demanding monthly honorariums for Buddhist monks and priests serving in Guru Ravidas and Valmiki temples. The Delhi Police alleged that the demonstration led to traffic congestion and inconvenience to commuters. According to the police, protestors were informed about the prohibitory order and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct through loudspeaker announcements. However, the Court found these claims unsubstantiated. “In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the accused had knowledge of the order issued by the concerned ACP. It has been vaguely averred in the complaint that the accused kept on raising slogans despite announcements on a loudhailer regarding the imposition of Section 163 BNSS,” the Court had noted.
Case Title: Ms. Seema Raj Vs. Directorate of Estates, Govt. of India
Order Date: October 28, 2025
Bench: Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna