New Delhi, May 26 (PTI) Giving Delhi Gymkhana Club members a breather, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday took note of the Centre's submission that it would not take forceful possession of the colonial era club by June 5 and said no interim order was needed at the moment.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan also refused to interfere at this stage with the Centre's decision to terminate the perpetual lease of the 27.3 acre plot of the club in the heart of Lutyens' Delhi and posted the matter for end of July.

The court proceedings have given Gymkhana members a reprieve at least till July end -- when the Centre will file its response to the petition and the petitioner the rejoinder to the government's reply.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Central government, said eviction proceedings will only be initiated in accordance with law and after giving due notice.

"June 5 is the date of which we have given an option to the lessee to vacate on its own. Unlike the popular belief, which is going rounds in media circles, it not that the police will rush in and forcible possession will be taken over. It will have to be taken over in accordance with the procedure established by law," he submitted.

Mehta added that compensation in this case can either be in terms of money or the government can offer an alternative land.

On May 22, an order issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO) under the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry asked DGC to return its land by June 5 on grounds of "strengthening and securing defence infrastructure".

The court observed on Tuesday that at this stage, there was nothing on record to suggest that authorities had initiated legal action for eviction and therefore no interim order was required on the lawsuits by Gymkhana members and staff.

"The issue (of eviction) is premature and presumptive. If need so arises, the plaintiffs can avail their remedies in accordance with the law," Justice Jhingan stated.

"Taking into account the summons issued and the statement made by the solicitor general, no further interim directions are called for. The statement is to the effect that for eviction, if so to be done, will be in accordance with law with prior notice," he added.

The court also issued summons to the Centre and the club's management on the lawsuits by the Gymkhana members, the staff as well as the last elected governing body, and sought written statements from the defendants within eight weeks.

It dispelled the plaintiffs' apprehension that DGC's governing body, which comprises nominees of the Centre, might be "hand-in-glove" with the authorities and could, therefore, hand over possession.

The apprehension appeared contrary to the solicitor general's assertion that the governing body has already written to the authorities to raise their grievances, the judge said.

The court said in its order that issues of locus of plaintiffs to file the lawsuits and the requirement to give prior notice for termination of lease deed would be considered at an appropriate stage.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gymkhana members, urged the court to pass an order to restrain authorities from taking any further action in the matter.

He contended that the Centre's decision to terminate the perpetual lease deed -- executed in 1928 -- lacked a real or genuine "public purpose", was against Article 300A of the Constitution and was silent on the issue of compensation.

Article 300A states, "Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law." Singhvi added that since the club is presently being run by nominees of the Central government, the members were constrained to approach the high court for relief.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the club's last elected body, said it was not a case of unauthorised occupation. Show-cause notice for eviction cannot be given after the government has already re-entered the premises, he argued.

Mehta accused the plaintiffs of "creating a ghost".

He said there cannot be any eviction by force, and any action must be as per the process prescribed in law.

Vijay Khurana, a Gymkhana member and one of the plaintiffs, said in his plea that the "vague and generalized reasons" of defence infrastructure and security given by the Centre were just a "sham". The move, he said, was an "attempt to effect forced eviction" instead of following the due process of law.

His lawsuit is stated to be supported by over 500 other members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club.

The plea seeks to restrain the Central government from "illegally determining" the Gymkhana Club's perpetual leasehold rights and to prevent any forced dispossession from the historic premises situated at 2, Safdarjung Road.

DGC is adjacent to the prime minister's residence on Lok Kalyan Marg on one of the city's most valuable and strategically important land parcels, within the high-security administrative zone that also houses several key central government and defence establishments.

Originally founded on July 3, 1913, as the Imperial Delhi Gymkhana Club, the institution was established to serve colonial administrators and military officers.

The word 'Imperial' was dropped after India gained Independence in 1947, while the existing structures were constructed in the 1930s.

In 2022, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) permitted the appointment of 15 government-nominated directors on the club's general committee after the Ministry of Corporate Affairs filed a plea alleging oppression and mismanagement in its affairs. PTI ADS SJK MIN MIN

Perpetual lease termination and due process concerns arise over proposed possession of Delhi Gymkhana Club premises. Termination of the Delhi Gymkhana Club's perpetual lease and the proposed handover of the premises were challenged on the ground that the stated defence-infrastructure rationale lacked genuine public purpose, that the action was contrary to Article 300A, and that compensation had not been addressed. The Centre stated that any eviction would be undertaken only in accordance with law and after due notice, with compensation possibly by money or alternative land. In view of that statement and the absence of material showing eviction proceedings, no interim directions were considered necessary at that stage.