New Delhi, Jul 9 The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought the stand of the central government on a petition by the Ambassador Hotel owner against a show-cause notice for eviction from the 7.58-acre premises at Sujan Singh Park here.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued notice on the petition by Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Private Limited and granted three weeks to the Centre to file its reply.
Senior counsel for the petitioner said he apprehended that an order of eviction could be passed on July 10. The matter has been listed before the estate officer on this date.
He urged the court to direct the estate officer to decide the issue of the maintainability of the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act before moving ahead in the matter.
Justice Shankar, however, refused to interfere with how the proceedings were being held, saying, "They are the statutory authorities. They will take care of it themselves."
"I am not going to direct how he has to conduct his proceedings," the judge added.
Central government counsel Ashish Dixit opposed the petition and stated that the matter is listed before the estate officer on July 10 for filing a reply to the petitioner's applications.
"Proceedings can continue. He says an eviction order is going to be passed tomorrow. (But) it is listed for filing of our reply on their applications," he stated.
Dixit also argued that the petition was not maintainable and that proceedings were being conducted by the estate officer as per the law.
In the petition, Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd challenged a show-cause notice dated June 11 issued by the estate officer, Land and Development Office under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, asking why they should not be evicted from the 7.58-acre premises known as Sujan Singh Park (north).
The petitioner contended that the estate officer has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter because they are not an "unauthorised occupant" and the show-cause notice must be quashed.
The petitioner holds a registered "government grant" dated October 8, 1945 with respect to the land and the government's attempt to "re-enter" in 1960 after determination of the perpetual lease was declared "wrong and illegal" by a court in 2009, according to the petition.
It further stated that although the Centre's appeal against the decision was allowed by the appellate court on June 9, the petitioner's subsequent appeal is pending in the high court.
"The impugned notice is a colourable device to overreach a pending, admitted second appeal and to convert a 66-year-old, court committed civil dispute into a fifteen-day summary eviction: issued within two days of the operative first-appellate order and before the reasoned judgment existed; founded on a judicial direction that was never made," the plea contended.
"The petitioner has been in open, continuous possession for 83 years; an injunction protected that possession from 14.10.1960; a decree in its favour stood from 2009 to 2026," it added.
The matter would be heard next on August 17.
