The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notice to the Union of India and the Land & Development Office (L&DO) on a writ petition filed by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited, owner of the Ambassador Hotel, challenging the eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, in respect of the 7.58-acre Sujan Singh Park (North) property in New Delhi.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar directed the respondents to file their replies within three weeks. The case arises from a challenge to the show-cause notice dated June 11, 2026, issued by the Estate Officer, L&DO, proposing eviction of the petitioner from the property. The petitioner has sought quashing of the notice on the ground that the proceedings are without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog sought an interim stay on the proceedings pending before the Estate Officer. He submitted that the Estate Officer had neither adjudicated the petitioner’s preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction nor permitted it to place relevant documents on record. He argued that all issues had been deferred to a single hearing scheduled for July 10, creating a real and imminent apprehension that an eviction order or other coercive, including ex parte, directions could be passed before the petitioner’s jurisdictional objections were decided. It was further submitted that unless the maintainability of the proceedings under the Public Premises Act was first determined, the petitioner would suffer irreparable prejudice.
The High Court, however, declined to stay the statutory proceedings or issue directions regulating the manner in which the Estate Officer should conduct them. The Court observed that the Estate Officer is a statutory authority empowered to discharge functions under the Public Premises Act and must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law.
Opposing the writ petition, Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit questioned its maintainability. He submitted that the proceedings listed before the Estate Officer on July 10 were only for filing the Government’s reply to the petitioner’s applications and that no precipitative action or eviction order was proposed to be passed on that date. He nevertheless maintained that there was no legal impediment to the continuation of the statutory proceedings.
The petitioner contended that the Estate Officer lacks jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Public Premises Act as the company cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant within the meaning of the statute. It argued that the core dispute relating to title, possession and the legality of the Union Government’s alleged re-entry into the property in 1960 is already sub judice before the High Court, rendering parallel summary eviction proceedings legally unsustainable.
According to the petitioner, it has remained in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1943, when it developed the Sujan Singh Park estate at the invitation of the Government. It claims rights over the property under a registered Agreement to Lease dated October 8, 1945, executed by the Governor General in Council. The property presently comprises the Ambassador Hotel and several residential flats.
The petitioner further submitted that the Government’s exercise of its right of re-entry was declared illegal by the trial court, which in its 2009 judgment upheld the legality of the hotel construction and decreed the suit in favour of the company. That decree remained in force for nearly 17 years until it was reversed by the District Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, on June 9, 2026. The appellate court accepted the Union Government’s contention that the lease permitted construction only of residential units and held that the construction of the Ambassador Hotel violated the terms of the grant, thereby validating the Government’s exercise of its contractual right of re-entry under Clause XVIII of the Agreement to Lease. The petitioner has challenged that judgment by filing a second appeal before the Delhi High Court, which is presently pending.
The company further asserted that the impugned eviction notice is founded upon the appellate court’s judgment despite the Union Government’s undertaking before the High Court that the proceedings under the Public Premises Act would be conducted independently and without reference to or influence from the said judgment. It submitted that the notice amounts to a colourable exercise of statutory power and an attempt to overreach the pending second appeal by converting a decades-old civil dispute into summary eviction proceedings under the 1971 Act.
Claiming that it has remained in uninterrupted possession of the property for more than eight decades and has enjoyed judicial protection since 1960, including the benefit of a decree in its favour between 2009 and 2026, the petitioner argued that the impugned notice is arbitrary, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted them three weeks to file their replies. The matter will now be taken up after completion of pleadings, while the proceedings before the Estate Officer will continue in accordance with law.
The post Delhi High Court issues notice to Centre on plea challenging eviction proceedings against Ambassador Hotel appeared first on India Legal.