The Supreme Court on Monday (August 24, 2026) asked the Delhi Race Club about the month-long hiatus before challenging a Delhi High Court decision which cleared the way for its eviction proceedings from an 84-acre premises on Lok Kalyan Marg.

The High Court order allowing eviction proceedings to continue under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 before the Estate Officer, Land and Development Office, Urban Affairs Ministry, in an order passed on May 27. The special leave petition against the High Court order was filed by the club on August 13.

“After the Division Bench order of the High Court on May 27, which you say you knew was not correct, why did you not rush to this court?” Justice N.K. Singh, who was part of the Bench headed by Justice S.C. Sharma, asked senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the club.

Mr. Divan said the High Court order was “completely unwarranted”. He said discussions were on between the club and the L&DO to amicably resolve the issue with an alternative allocation of land and an orderly relocation of the club within a reasonable period. A 10-year exemption from payment of dues and taxes were also under discussion. The proceedings under the Public Premises Act had been adjourned during the talks spanning across several meetings, the senior counsel explained.

He said the Estate Officer was fully in the know about the talks, but “suddenly passed the eviction order without giving the club a reasonable opportunity to be heard”. The Estate Officer passed the formal eviction order to the club on August 11. It had given the establishment 15 days to vacate the Lok Kalyan Marg premises.

The court scheduled the case for detailed hearing on August 25, and asked the club to serve the copies to the authorities concerned.

The dispute concerns the club’s occupation of an 84-acre plot on Lok Kalyan Marg. The Centre had argued that the lease granted to the club in 1926 expired on December 31, 1994, and had not been renewed.

According to the Centre, the club has continued to occupy the premises without authorisation since the expiry of the lease. In March, the Centre issued a notice seeking peaceful possession of the land, stating that it was required for a “public purpose”.

Subsequently, on April 17, proceedings were initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, and a show-cause notice was issued asking the club to explain why eviction orders and recovery for unauthorised occupation should not be passed against it.

The club challenged the notice before a Single-Judge Bench, which had directed the authorities not to proceed further with the matter until July 30.

However, the Centre had appealed the Single-Judge Bench order before a Division Bench of the High Court. Subsequently, a Bench of High Court Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia allowed the Centre’s appeal.

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a petition by the Jockey Association of India challenging the eviction order issued against the Delhi Race Club from its 53-acre premises in Lutyens’ Delhi.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the association’s petition was not maintainable, noting that the Delhi Race Club, the affected party, had already challenged the eviction order.

Opposing the petition, counsel for the Union government, Ashish Dixit, argued that the association had no locus to challenge the order as it was not a party to the lease agreement between the club and the government for the land.

The Estate Officer, acting under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, had on August 11 ordered the club to vacate the entire premises within 15 days.

The Jockey Association challenged the order, stating that the eviction would affect the employment and livelihoods of jockeys, trainers, stable hands and other members associated with horse racing.

The association contended that the Delhi Race Club was the only facility in north India with specialised infrastructure for thoroughbred horse racing, stabling, training and exercise. It argued that the authorities’ decision to take over the premises was arbitrary and contrary to law.

The plea stated that the eviction order, without providing an alternative facility, would leave jockeys with no place to stable, train or exercise their horses, affecting their rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

It also questioned the Centre’s assertion that the land was required for a “public purpose”, arguing that the authorities had not disclosed the purpose or explained how the existing racing and equestrian activities would be accommodated.

“The Impugned Order would effectively destroy an existing sporting institution while serving no identified or demonstrated public purpose,” the plea stated.

The Centre has maintained that the 1926 lease deed with the club, covering an 84.48-acre plot, was not perpetual and expired on December 31, 1994.