The Centre on Thursday (September 3, 2026) told the Delhi High Court that it would not take any coercive action against the Delhi Gymkhana Club until the next date of hearing on September 16.

The submission was made before Justice Avneesh Jhingan, who was hearing petitions by club member Vijay Khurana and the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Staff Welfare Association challenging a June 29 show-cause notice issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO) ordering the club’s eviction from the 27.3-acre premises on Safdarjung Road.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the court that the Centre’s earlier undertaking not to take coercive action would continue. “We will not take any action in a coercive manner. The (earlier) statement continues. We will not take any coercive action till the next date (September 16),” Mr. Sharma said.

The petitions arise from the L&DO’s May 22 decision terminating the Delhi Gymkhana Club’s perpetual lease and directing it to vacate the land on the ground of “strengthening and securing defence infrastructure”.

The Centre had earlier argued that the High Court had no legal authority to prevent the government from taking possession of the land after termination of the perpetual lease and issuance of the eviction notice.

It also contended that the perpetual lease was a bilateral agreement between the government and the club. Since an individual club member was neither a party nor privy to the agreement, the member could not independently restrain the authorities from exercising their contractual rights, the Centre said.

Mr. Khurana has alleged in his lawsuit that the reasons cited by the Centre, including defence infrastructure and security, were “vague” and “generalised” and amounted to a “sham”.

He has claimed that the government’s action was an attempt to forcibly evict the club without following due process of law. His lawsuit is stated to have the support of more than 500 club members.

The Delhi High Court on Monday asked the Centre to respond to petitions filed by a club member and employees’ association of the Delhi Gymkhana Club challenging the June 29 show-cause notice by the Estate Officer of the L&DO, asking the club and all its occupants to explain why eviction proceedings should not be initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The notice had directed the club to submit its response by 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday.

Justice Avneesh Jhingan issued notice to the Central government on applications, one by club member Vijay Khurana and another by the Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. Staff Welfare Association, seeking a stay on the execution of the show-cause notice. He directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that Tuesday’s hearing before the Estate Officer is adjourned to a date after the next hearing in the case on July 28. Mr. Mehta said the Centre would file its response to the applications.

Earlier order

The pleas form part of their pending petition arising from the L&DO’s May 22 order terminating the perpetual lease deed and directing the historic club to return the land by June 5, stating that the land was required for strengthening defence infrastructure and other public purposes.

On May 26, the Centre informed the High Court that it would not take forcible possession of the property by June 5 while maintaining that the land is needed to “strengthen and secure defence infrastructure and vital public security purposes”.

The Solicitor General had said that the Centre would take over the land only “in accordance with procedure established by law” and after serving a notice. Following this, Estate Officer Bipin Kumar Singh issued a notice to the club on June 29, in which he cited Clause 4 of the Perpetual Lease Deed, stating that L&DO “expressly reserves power in favour of the lessor to resume and re-enter upon the premises whenever the same are required for public purpose”.

In his pending suit, Mr. Khurana has questioned the legality of the government’s decision to terminate the club’s nearly century-old perpetual lease.

He has argued that the Centre’s claims regarding defence infrastructure are “vague and unsupported”. He has also alleged that the action amounts to an attempt to evict the club without following the due legal process.

Alternatively, he sought a direction to the Estate Officer not to pass any final order under the Public Premises Act or take any coercive or dispossessory step.

(With inputs from PTI)