Patiala House Court refuses interim relief to Indian Polo Association in Jaipur Polo Ground eviction dispute

New Delhi [India], July 7 (ANI): The Patiala House Court has refused to grant interim relief to the Indian Polo Association (IPA) in its challenge to the eviction from the historic Jaipur Polo Ground in Delhi, holding that it lacks the statutory jurisdiction to restrain the government from dealing with the property after possession has already been taken over.
Vacation Judge Dr Sugandha Aggarwal dismissed the Indian Polo Association's application filed under Section 9(3) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking directions to maintain status quo at the Jaipur Polo Ground, prevent any digging or alteration of the polo turf, and permit the association's employees and authorised personnel to access the premises for its maintenance pending disposal of its appeal.
The court observed that the appeal before it is a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act and that its powers are confined to examining the legality and propriety of the eviction order. It held that the Act does not confer any inherent powers akin to those available to civil courts under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to regulate the use or development of the premises after eviction has already been executed.
The court held that any prayer seeking to restrain the respondent from dealing with the premises in a particular manner falls outside the jurisdiction conferred under the Public Premises Act and, therefore, the relief sought by the association could not be granted.
On the merits as well, the court found that no prima facie case had been made out in favour of the association to justify the grant of an interim injunction.
It was observed that the Indian Polo Association itself admitted that it occupied the premises only as a lessee and that the lease, after its expiry in 1993, was extendable only on a year-to-year basis until an alternative site was provided. The court rejected the association's argument that the government was obliged to provide an alternative site before seeking eviction, holding that no such obligation could be inferred from the relevant notification or the terms of the lease.
The Union of India was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit, along with advocate Gaurav and officials of the Land & Development Office.
Rejecting another contention of the association, the court held that the acceptance of rent or occupation charges by the government, even if advance rent had been paid up to 2030, did not confer any perpetual or indefeasible possessory rights over the public premises.
The court further observed that the prayer seeking to restrain the government from digging or modifying the polo turf effectively sought to prevent the true owner from dealing with its own property. Since the association was no longer in possession of the premises, the balance of convenience lay entirely in favour of the respondent, it held. The court also found that no irreparable injury could be said to have been caused to an entity that was no longer in possession of the public premises.
Accordingly, the interim application was dismissed. The court clarified that the observations made while deciding the interim application would not influence the final adjudication of the main appeal, which has been listed before the concerned court on July 23.
The dispute arises out of an eviction order dated May 20 passed by the Estate Officer of the Land & Development Office directing the Indian Polo Association to vacate approximately 15.20 acres of land at Jaipur Polo Ground, New Delhi, on the ground that its lease dated February 24, 1951, had expired in March 1993 and that the association had become an unauthorised occupant. The association has challenged the eviction order through a statutory appeal under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act. (ANI)