The Centre’s decision to ask the prestigious Delhi Gymkhana Club to vacate its 27.3-acre premises has once again brought the spotlight on a growing battle over prime public land in the national capital. While the government has justified the move by citing the need to “strengthen and secure defence infrastructure,” the eviction notice is also rooted in a long-running dispute over unpaid dues, revised lease rentals and the legal status of some of Delhi’s oldest institutions occupying government land.

The Gymkhana Club is only the latest high-profile institution to face action. In recent months, the Indian Polo Association (IPA) and the Delhi Race Club have also reportedly approached the Delhi High Court after receiving eviction notices from authorities.

Rs 47 crore dues at the heart of Gymkhana Club dispute

At the centre of the Gymkhana Club dispute is a massive hike in lease rent imposed by the Land and Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. In December 2023, the government revised the club’s rent retrospectively from April 2018 based on prevailing institutional land rates.

The revised rent demand reportedly shot up to nearly Rs 4.1 crore annually, an increase the club described as almost “10,000 times the original rent”. As notices continued over the past year, the total dues demanded from the club climbed to Rs 47.59 crore by April this year.

ALSO READ

Gymkhana Club challenges retrospective rent hike

The club has challenged the move in court, arguing that the rent revision was imposed retrospectively despite a 1983 government office order that bars such revisions. It has also claimed that it was not given a proper opportunity to present its case.

Another major argument raised by the club is financial incapacity. The Gymkhana Club told the court that it has been operating under a court-appointed management following proceedings before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), making it difficult to clear the mounting dues.

Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court directed the club and the L&DO to hold discussions to explore an amicable solution. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing in July.

Indian Polo Association and Delhi Race Club also under scanner

The Gymkhana Club case comes amid a wider crackdown involving some of Delhi’s most prominent sporting institutions.

In March, authorities issued eviction notices to the Indian Polo Association, which manages the historic Jaipur Polo Ground, and the Delhi Race Club, spread across 53 acres on Kamal Ataturk Marg.

Both institutions moved the High Court, which temporarily stayed the proposed evictions while asking the government to follow due legal process.

Government says land occupation is unauthorized

According to a report by Indian Express, the Centre has maintained that these institutions are occupying public premises without valid lease rights. In the case of the Indian Polo Association, the Estate Officer ruled that payments accepted by the government after March 1993 were merely “use and occupation charges” and did not amount to a valid continuation of the lease.

The association had reportedly argued that the lease effectively continued because the government kept accepting payments, including rent deposited as recently as April 2025 for the period up to 2030. However, the Estate Officer rejected that claim and ordered eviction, prompting the association to challenge the decision before the High Court.

ALSO READ

Delhi Race Club cites earlier HC victory

The Delhi Race Club has also relied on earlier court rulings to defend its occupation of the land. The club argued that the government cannot treat it as an “unauthorised occupant” without formally terminating the original 1926 lease deed.

Interestingly, a similar eviction attempt made by the government in 1999 was eventually quashed by the Delhi High Court in 2012 on similar grounds.

This latest legal battle has reopened larger questions: Can legacy institutions occupying public land continue operating under decades-old agreements or can the government reclaim these spaces citing public interest, defence requirements and unpaid dues?