The Indian government told the Delhi High Court it will not forcibly take possession of the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises in Lutyens’ Delhi.
The case centers on the acquisition of high-value land in the capital's diplomatic heart. The government's move to seize the property for national security purposes highlights the tension between private club holdings and state infrastructure needs.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there will be no forcible eviction from the premises on June 5 [1]. That date serves as the deadline set by the eviction notice for the club to hand over the property [1].
Mehta said, "Any eviction proceedings against the club would be carried out strictly in accordance with the law and only after due notice to the occupants" [2].
The dispute involves a site covering approximately 27.3 acres [3]. While some reports describe the area as 27 acres [2], other records specify the larger 27.3-acre figure [3]. The government has invoked its constitutional and statutory powers to acquire the land, citing a public purpose to strengthen defence infrastructure [3].
The Delhi High Court previously refused to stay the takeover notice, but the government's recent assurances aim to clarify that legal protocols will be maintained. The Centre maintains that the acquisition is necessary for national security, a justification that typically grants the state broad powers under Indian law.
Despite the looming June 5 deadline, the government's commitment to "due notice" suggests a structured transition rather than an immediate raid. The club continues to operate on the site while the legal process unfolds.
“"There will be no forcible eviction from the Delhi Gymkhana Club premises on June 5."”
This development underscores the Indian government's priority in expanding defence infrastructure within the secure Lutyens' zone. By assuring the court that legal procedures will be followed, the Centre avoids a direct confrontation with a high-profile social institution while maintaining its legal trajectory to seize the land. The outcome will likely set a precedent for how the state balances statutory acquisition powers against the property rights of established private entities in the capital.
