Order to take back Gymkhana land ‘malicious’: club member’s plea in Delhi High Court
Delhi HC will hear ‘longstanding’ member Vijay Khurana’s petition: Govt move smacks of ‘a premeditated and coordinated design’
![On May 22, the Land and Development Office under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs wrote to the secretary of the club initiating the “re-entry and resumption of [the] premises” at 2 Safdarjung Road.](https://images.indianexpress.com/2026/05/gymkhana.jpg?w=1600)
On May 22, the Land and Development Office under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs wrote to the secretary of the club initiating the “re-entry and resumption of [the] premises” at 2 Safdarjung Road. (PTI Photo) The Delhi High Court will hear on Tuesday a suit filed by Vijay Khurana, described as a longstanding member of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, asking the court to restrain the central government from taking back the land occupied by the elite, almost century-old club in the heart of Lutyens’ Delhi.
Khurana, who has claimed that he is “supported by over 500 other members” of the club, has described the government’s move as a “malicious and colourable exercise – the last in a series of acts…to gain control over the institution”.
On May 22, the Land and Development Office under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs wrote to the secretary of the club initiating the “re-entry and resumption of [the] premises” at 2 Safdarjung Road.
Clause 4 of the 1928 lease deed says the premises can be “re-entered”, or taken back, in full or part, if it is required for a public purpose. The government has said the re-entry is necessary for “strengthening and securing Defence infrastructure”.
Khurana has submitted that the government has over the years adopted a “continuing and concerted course of conduct to progressively assume control” over the club and its assets.
He has referred to the proceedings initiated under the Companies Act in 2020 alleging mismanagement of the club, after which the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had placed the management and affairs of the club “under substantial governmental influence and control”.
“The sequence, timing and nature of the impugned action demonstrate a premeditated and coordinated design rather than any genuine or emergent public requirement. The vague invocation of “public purpose” is merely a facade to achieve a collateral objective, namely complete governmental control over (the club) and its assets,” says the petition.
The government’s invocation of Clause 4 of the perpetual lease deed is “vague”, and the notice “neither identifies any specific public project nor discloses any material, assessment, approval or necessity justifying repossession” of the property, it says.
The invocation of the clause is “entirely mechanical, unsupported by particulars and reflective of complete non-application of mind”, it says.
Khurana has alleged that the notice “manufactures an artificial urgency by directing surrender of possession within fifteen days without disclosing any emergent circumstance warranting such extraordinary action”.
It is also “entirely silent” on “mandatory safeguards” such as determination of compensation in respect of the premium, buildings, and structures on the premises, the payment of compensation in the manner contemplated under the perpetual lease deed, and compliance with the contractual mechanism governing the resumption of possession, he has argued.
Khurana has also referred to a 2009 notice issued by the Deputy Land & Development Officer withdrawing an earlier re-entry order of September 29, 2000.
The 2009 declaration by the government recorded, “Your ownership and titles stand restored to you. You are now bound by the covenants of the original lease deed executed on 28.2.1928,” Khurana has said.
According to the petition, “such proprietary rights cannot be extinguished by executive notice. Under Article 300A of the Constitution, any deprivation of property should be by authority of “substantive law that is fair, just and reasonable, in pursuance of a genuine public purpose, with notice, hearing, reasoned decision and payment of fair compensation”.
Share
