Delhi HC stays eviction of Race Club, Polo ground; directs centre to follow 'due process'

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has stayed the eviction of the Delhi Race Club and the Indian Polo Association from their historic premises.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, in two separate orders passed on March 25, restrained the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs from taking "forcible possession" of the Delhi Race Club at Kamal Ataturk Marg and the Jaipur Polo Ground in the Race Course area.

Both entities had been served with eviction notices dated March 12, 2026.

"Based on the aforesaid narration of facts and submissions made before this Court, a prima facie case has been made out in favour of the plaintiff. Further balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable injury shall be caused to the plaintiff, if interim relief is not granted to the plaintiff," the court said while restraining the Centre from dispossessing the club until the next hearing on April 9.

The court noted that the race club has been operating on the 53.242-acre premises since a lease was first granted in 1926.

"This court has made a pointed query to the defendant, whether the defendant would make a statement before this Court similar to the other connected matter, that the defendant shall not dispossess the plaintiff without resorting to due process of law," Justice Pushkarna said.

Appearing for the club, Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt, argued that they were in lawful occupation and had been regularly paying ground rent.

He contended that under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, the club's status is that of a "holding over" tenant, making the eviction notice illegal.

In a parallel petition filed by the Indian Polo Association (IPA) regarding the Jaipur Polo Ground, the court held that even if the government seeks to resume land for a "larger public purpose," it must follow the "due process of law." The IPA, represented by senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, submitted that the association had been in continuous possession of the ground for over four decades and had already made lease payments up to March 2030.

The Centre, however, argued that the lease had expired in 1993 and the IPA was merely a "licensee" with no right to remain.

Refuting the Centre's attempt at summary eviction, the court cited Supreme Court precedents to emphasise that the government cannot use force to evict a person in settled possession.

"This court binds the government not to evict the petitioner on the basis of the Eviction Notice dated 12th March, 2026. In case the government seeks to resume the land in question, the government shall initiate appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, and follow due process of law," the court said.

The court has sought responses from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs in both matters. It has listed both the matters for April 9 for further hearing.