Delhi High Court – Orders
Indian Polo Association vs Union Of India on 25 March, 2026
$~51
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 & I.A. 8032/2026
INDIAN POLO ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Rishi
Agrawala, Mr. Rohan Batra, Major
Nirvikar Singh, Mr. Himanshu Soni,
Ms. Shruti Arora, Ms. Tarini
Khurana, Ms. Muskan Sethi, Ms.
Nidhi Chaudhary, Mr. Dhruv Sethi,
Mr. Prabhav Bahuguna, Advocates
along with Col. Vikramjit Singh
Kahlon, VSM
versus
UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Umar
Hashmi, Mr. Gautam Yadav, Mr.
Gaurav, Mr. Adhiraj Singh, Ms. Iqra
Sheikh, Ms. Deepika Kalra, Ms.
Urmila Sharma, Ms. Venni Kakkar,
Advocates along with Mr. Rohit
Lathar, ASO, Mr. Kunal Bhashkar,
Dy. L& DO (M:9999900412)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 25.03.2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act“) seeking urgent interim
protection against the Eviction Notice dated 12th March, 2026 issued by the
respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been called upon to vacate the Jaipur
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 1 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
Polo Ground, Race Course area, New Delhi, within 15 days of the date of
issuance of the impugned Eviction Notice.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
herein is a National Sports Federation, governing Polo in India, and has been
in continuous lawful possession and management of the Jaipur Polo Ground
for over four decades.
3. It is submitted that the land has been in possession of the predecessor
of the present petitioner since 1920’s and was formally leased on 24th
February, 1951 w.e.f. 01st March, 1951 by the Government of India, in
favour of then Delhi Polo Club for 20 years. Further, post 28th February,
1971, the lease was extended from time to time on identical terms and
continued to subsist.
4. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Document-5 attached with
the present petition, which is Lease dated 24th February, 1951 to submit that
the said document covers the period of lease from the year 1951 to 1971,
which was the initial lease period.
5. Subsequently, vide Document-6, i.e., Renewal Letters, the lease was
extended from 1972 to 1982.
6. By referring to Document-8, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner that the said document covers the period of lease from the
year 1982 to 1984.
7. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Letter dated 22nd June,
1984, issued by the Land and Development Office (“L&DO”), Government
of India, and in particular to Clause 7, which reads as under:
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 2 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 3 of 16This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
8. By referring to the aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has continued the possession of the land in
question pursuant to the right conferred on the petitioner.
9. It is submitted that till the year 1982, the land was leased in favour of
the Delhi Polo Club. However, post the year 1982, the name was substituted
as Indian Polo Association, which is the present petitioner before this Court.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Document-
12, which is a Letter dated 30th November, 1992, to submit that even to the
understanding of the Government, the lease in favour of the petitioner
continued and that vide the said Letter, extension of lease was granted to the
petitioner till 31st March, 1993.
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 4 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Note in
Clause II of the aforesaid letter dated 30th November, 1992, to submit that it
was categorically stated by the Government that license fee shall be revised
every 10 years on the land rates prevailing on the date of revision.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
word ‘license’ has been used in the aforesaid letter, but the subject of the
letter itself uses the word ‘Lease’. He, thus, submits that the lease in favour
of the petitioner was extended by way of this Letter.
13. The Letter dated 30th November, 1992, issued by the Ministry of
Urban Development, Government of India to the Land and Development
Officer, Nirman Bhawan, reads as under:
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 5 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 6 of 16This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
thereafter, there have been a number of letters from the Government
demanding payment of the lease amount. He draws the attention of this
Court to Letter dated 04th April, 2025, which is reproduced as under:
15. By referring to the aforesaid document, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner submits that last the payment was made by the petitioner to the
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 7 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
Government of India on 04th April, 2025, which covers the period from 01st
April, 2025 till 31st March, 2030.
16. He further draws the attention of this Court to Letter dated 04th April,
2025, which was received by the petitioner from the L&DO, wherein, they
have acknowledged the aforesaid letter and receipt of amount.
17. Further, attention of this Court has also been drawn to the document
showing the acknowledgment of the amount paid by the petitioner for the
period till 31st March, 2030, in favour of the L&DO. The said document is
reproduced as under:
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 8 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
18. By referring to the aforesaid documents, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the lessee who has paid the lease
amount till April, 2030. He, thus, submits that the impugned Eviction Notice
dated 12th March, 2026 wrongly records that the lease in favour of the
petitioner has not been extended after 01st April, 1993.
19. He further submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the
land in question for more than 75 years through his predecessor in interest.
He, thus, submits that by way the impugned Eviction Notice dated 12th
March, 2026, the respondent cannot seek to evict the petitioner with a notice
of 15 days. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Versus Union of India and
Others, (1986) 1 SCC 133, and in particular, relies upon the following
paragraphs:
“xxx xxx xxx
85. For the sake of completeness, I wish to clear the ground of a
possible misconception. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1
the Union of India while contending that the impugned notice dated
March 10, 1980 was of an exploratory nature, fairly conceded that the
lessor i.e. the Union of India must enforce its right of re-entry upon
forfeiture of lease under clause 5 of the lease-deed by recourse to due
process of law and wanted to assure us that there was no question of
marching the army or making use of the demolition squad of the Delhi
Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in
demolishing the Express Buildings. As we felt that there was some
ambiguity in the expression “due process of law”, we wanted a
categorical answer whether by this he meant by a properly constituted
suit. Without meaning any disrespect, the learned counsel adopted an
ambivalent attitude saying that the due process may not only consist
in the filing of a suit by the lessor or re-entry upon forfeiture of the
lease but that in the case of lease of Government lands, the authorities
may also take recourse to the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. I have no doubt in my mind that
the learned counsel is not right in suggesting that the lessor i.e. the
Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing can in the facts and
circumstances of the case, take recourse to the summary procedureO.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 9 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
under that Act. The Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. having acted upon
the grant of permission by the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry
of Works & Housing to construct the new Express Building with an
increased FAR of 360 together with a double basement was clearly
not an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of Section 2(g) of
the Act which runs as under:
“2 (g) ‘unauthorised occupation’, in relation to any public
premises, means the occupation by any person of the public
premises without authority for such occupation, and includes the
continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises
after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of
transfer), under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has
expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.”
86. The Express Buildings constructed by Express Newspapers Pvt.
Ltd. with the sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of
Works and Housing on plots Nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg
demised on perpetual lease by registered lease-deed dated March 17,
1958 can, by no process of reasoning, be regarded as public premises
belonging to the Central Government under Section 2(e). That being
so, there is no question of the lessor applying for eviction of the
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. under Section 5(1) of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 nor has the
Estate Officer any authority or jurisdiction to direct their eviction
under sub-section (2) thereof by summary process. Due process of law
in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of suit by the
lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing for the
enforcement of the alleged right of re-entry, if any, upon forfeiture of
lease due to breach of the terms of the lease.
xxx xxx xxx
R.B. Misra, J.– I have perused the judgment prepared by brother
Justice A.P. Sen as also the judgment of brother Justice E.S.
Venkataramiah. While I agree that the impugned notices threatening
re-entry and demolition of the construction are invalid and have no
legal value and must be quashed for reasons detailed in the two
judgments, which I do not propose to repeat over again. I am of the
view that the other questions involved in the case are based upon
contractual obligations between the parties. These questions can be
satisfactorily and effectively dealt with in a properly instituted
proceeding or suit and not by a writ petition on the basis of affidavits
which are so discrepant and contradictory in this case.
207. The right to the land and to construct buildings thereon for
running a business is not derived from Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution but springs from the terms of contract between the
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 10 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
parties regulated by other laws governing the subject viz. the Delhi
Development Act, 1957, the Master Plan, the Zonal Development Plan
framed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Delhi
Municipal Bye-laws, 1959 irrespective of the purpose for which the
buildings are constructed. Whether there has been a breach of the
contract of lease or whether there has been a breach of the other
statutes regulating the construction of buildings are the questions
which can be properly decided by taking detailed evidence involving
examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
xxx xxx xxx”
20. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the Supreme Court has laid down in categorical terms
that in cases, where the land is sought to be taken over from a lessee, the
lessor, i.e., Union of India, would have to follow the due process of law. He,
thus, submits that the impugned Eviction Notice is bad in law on that
ground.
21. He further draws the attention of this Court to the Document-14
attached with the present petition, i.e., Letter dated 17th August, 2006, issued
by the Ministry of Urban Development, L&DO, Government of India to the
petitioner, which is reproduced as under:
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 11 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
22. By referring to the aforesaid letter, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner submits that as late as 2006, the petitioner has received a letter forO.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 12 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
misuse of the leased land from the Government of India. He, thus, submits
that the contention of the Government that the lease in favour of the
petitioner has not been extended after the year 1993, is totally wrong, and is
not acceptable.
23. He further draws the attention of this Court to Clause V of the Lease
Deed, which is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
24. By referring to the aforesaid, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that there is an arbitration clause, on account of which, the present
petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act has been filed.
25. In response, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India submits
that as of today, there is no valid lease existing in favour of the petitioner.
He submits that the lease of the petitioner expired in the year 1993, and,
thus, he submits that post 1993, the status of the petitioner is only as a tenant
by sufferance and not a lessee as such.
26. Learned counsel for the Union of India further draws the attention of
this Court to the Eviction Notice dated 12th March, 2026, to submit that the
said notice has not been issued by the respondent on the basis of violation of
lease conditions. He submits that the said notice has been issued by the
Government with respect to using the said land for a larger public purpose
and benefit.
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 13 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
27. He submits that the land in question abuts the residence of the Prime
Minister of the country and is situated in the centre of Delhi. He, thus,
submits that the respondent, as the land owning agency, seeks to develop the
land for larger public purposes.
28. He further submits that previously, in the writ petition filed by the
petitioner, the petitioner had referred itself as a licensee.
29. He further draws the attention of this Court to the representation of
the petitioner dated 17th March, 2026, wherein, in Para 24, the petitioner
again has referred to the occupation of the petitioner as a licensee. He, thus,
submits that even to the understanding of the petitioner, the petitioner was
only a licensee and not a lessee.
30. He submits that the Government shall take appropriate steps in
accordance with law for recovery of possession, in case the land in question
is not handed over to the Government in terms of the Eviction Notice dated
12th March, 2026.
31. Learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India further submits that
the Clause V of the Lease Agreement, as relied upon by the petitioner, shall
not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the said clause pertains
to reference of disputes to an Arbitrator, only in cases where there is a
dispute with regard to violation of the terms and conditions of the Lease
Deed.
32. He submits that in the present case, the Eviction Notice dated 12th
March, 2026 is not on the basis of the any violation of the Lease Deed and
has been issued only for the purposes of recovery of the possession of the
land for development of the land by the Government, for the benefit of the
public. He, thus, submits that the contention of the petitioner, with regard to
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 14 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
reference of the matter to arbitration, is not correct.
33. Per contra, in response, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
disputes the submissions made on behalf of the Government. He submits
that there is valid arbitration clause and that the petitioner is also in the
process of invoking the arbitration clause today itself.
34. He submits that he is carrying a letter today which shall be duly
communicated to the respondent for invoking the arbitration clause.
35. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also disputes the
submission that the petitioner is only a licensee and reiterates his submission
that the petitioner is a lessee.
36. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court leaves the
question as regards applicability of arbitration clause in the present case
open.
37. This Court notes the submission made on behalf of the Government
that in order to take possession of the land in question, they shall initiate
appropriate proceedings for eviction and recovery of the possession.
38. Accordingly, this Court binds the Government not to evict the
petitioner on the basis of the Eviction Notice dated 12th March, 2026.
39. 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.
40. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed
on the basis of the Eviction Notice dated 12th March, 2026. Any action,
which is sought to be taken against the petitioner, shall be subject to any
proceedings initiated by the Government, in accordance with law.
41. Rights and contentions of all the parties are kept open, to be taken up
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 15 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52
in appropriate proceedings.
42. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with pending
application, is disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
MARCH 25, 2026/au
O.M.P.(I) 4/2026 Page 16 of 16
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/03/2026 at 20:51:52