Won't go and forcibly vacate: Centre tells Delhi high court over Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction

CEntre told the new delhi heights margaret court on tues that it has precondition the Delhi Gymkhana Club, or DGC, an opportunity to vacate the premises “on its own” and that if they do not vacate on their own, it is not that the police will rush in and the Centre will take forcible possession of the premises.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the high court that possession will be taken in accordance with the law.“We cannot go and get it vacated,” he told the single-judge bench of justice Avneesh Jhingan.“We will not take possession except in accordance with the procedure as per law. It cannot be on the 5th, because we will have to issue notice, etc. It’s not that on the 5th, somebody will grant consent,” the law officer further said.This comes after the Centre asked the Gymkhana Club in Lutyens' Delhi to hand over its premises by June 5, citing that the 27.3-acre land parcel was required for "strengthening and securing defence infrastructure".Established in 1913, the Delhi Gymkhana Club was described by its members as one of the capital's oldest sporting and social institutions, with heritage value beyond its commercial land value.Also Read | How Delhi Gymkhana closure will impact India's global image, writes ex-IPS Azad | OpinionWhat is the Delhi Gymkhana row?The order, issued by the Land & Development Office (L&DO) under the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Ministry, stated that the premises, located in a highly sensitive and strategic area of Delhi, are critically required for the strengthening and securing of defence infrastructure and for other vital public security purposes.Club member Vijay Khurana, whose suit is backed by nearly 500 members, has sought a restraint on the Centre from “illegally determining” the club’s perpetual leasehold rights and forcibly dispossessing it. The suit also seeks an interim direction to maintain the status quo on the property.The suit argued that the May 22 notice makes no provision for compensation, thereby violating Article 300A of the Constitution.The club’s suit further argued that the Centre’s December 18, 2009 letter expressly stated the club’s “ownership and titles stand restored”, acknowledging that the perpetual lease deed dated February 2, 1928 conferred proprietary rights upon the club.“The impugned notice is a malicious and colourable exercise... An attempt to effect forced eviction through executive force instead of following due process of law,” the suit stated.