The central government on Saturday took physical possession of the 15.2-acre Jaipur Polo Ground in the Race Course area. This action came after the Indian Polo Association (IPA), which manages the facility, failed to obtain relief from the court regarding an eviction notice issued by the Land and Development Office (L&DO).
Eviction Notice Pasted on Ground
Officials from the L&DO pasted a notice on the front wall of the ground. The notice stated, “This is the property of Land & Development Office, Govt of India. Any unauthorised occupation, encroachment, construction or illegal activities is a punishable offence under the law.”
IPA Calls Eviction Wrongful
The Indian Polo Association has termed the eviction “wrongful, arbitrary and contrary to law.” The association said it would pursue all available legal remedies to safeguard its rights and interests.
Court Refuses Interim Relief
On Friday, vacation judge Dhirendra Rana refused to grant interim relief to the association. The judge stated he was not inclined to halt the implementation of the eviction order issued on May 20.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a plea on June 8, directing the Patiala House court to hear the association’s stay application on June 10. The court also asked the parties to appear before the district and sessions judge. While disposing of the matter, the vacation bench of the high court made critical oral observations regarding the Centre’s proposed takeover and its probable impact on the current landscape of Lutyens’ Delhi.
Hearing Details
During Friday’s hearing, central government’s standing counsel, Ashish Dixit, asked the court for more time to file its response to IPA’s challenge against the eviction order and its request to put the order on hold. The request was opposed by the IPA counsel, who urged the court to stay the execution of the order until the central government filed its response.
In response, Dixit argued that the association had incorrectly submitted before the Delhi High Court that its request for interim relief was not considered by the district court. He claimed that no separate stay application was filed by IPA.
After hearing the parties, the judge noted that the district judge had not granted any stay on June 3 and that the writ petition filed by IPA before the high court was disposed of on June 8 without any interim protection. “Therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline and propriety, I am not inclined to stay the execution of impugned order even till next date,” the court said, refusing to stay the eviction order while asking the Centre to file its reply on June 17.
