The Delhi High Court has requested a response from the central government on a challenge filed by the owner of the Ambassador Hotel against a show-cause notice seeking its eviction from a 7.58-acre property at Sujan Singh Park.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued the notice to the Centre, granting it three weeks to submit a reply. The high court scheduled the next hearing for August 17.
While issuing the notice, the court declined to halt the ongoing proceedings before the estate officer, rejecting the petitioner’s request for interim intervention. The petitioner, Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Private Limited, had expressed concern that an eviction order could be issued on July 10, when the matter was scheduled for a hearing before the estate officer.
The company’s legal counsel had urged the court to instruct the estate officer to first determine whether the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, were legally maintainable. Justice Shankar, however, ruled that the estate officer is a statutory authority who will make decisions in accordance with the law.
Centre Opposes High Court Intervention
The central government opposed the hotel owner’s petition, maintaining that the estate officer’s proceedings are being conducted in accordance with established legal procedures. Government counsel noted that the scheduled July 10 hearing was set to address applications filed by the company itself.
Arguments Over 1945 Government Grant
The legal challenge centers on a June 11 show-cause notice issued by the Land and Development Office under the Public Premises Act, asking the company to justify why it should not be evicted from the Sujan Singh Park (North) property.
Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Private Limited argued that it cannot be classified as an unauthorised occupant, asserting that it holds a registered government grant issued in 1945. The company stated it has been in continuous possession of the prime property for more than eight decades and claimed the estate officer lacks the jurisdiction to initiate eviction proceedings.
Additionally, the petitioner pointed out that the eviction proceedings were initiated even though a separate, related legal dispute is currently pending before the High Court.
