The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rescheduled the hearing of a petition filed by the Indian Polo Association to July 9, following assurances from the central government that the playing turf at the 15.20-acre Jaipur Polo Ground will remain undisturbed in the interim.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar deferred the matter after noting that the parties involved did not yet have access to a physical copy of the lower court’s ruling. The association is appealing a June 18 sessions court order that rejected its request to halt its eviction from the prominent Delhi sports venue.
Interim Assurances On Turf Preservation
During the hearing, central government counsel Ashish Dixit assured the court that authorities are only demarcating boundaries to construct a fence and will not alter or dig up the specialized playing turf. Dixit noted that a similar commitment had been made during a vacation bench hearing on June 29.
Justice Shankar observed that since the government is already in physical possession of the property, there is no immediate need to disrupt the sports field.
The Indian Polo Association’s representative, senior advocate Kirtiman Singh, had urged the court to direct the authorities to preserve the ground. Singh emphasized that the association’s main appeal against the eviction is set to be heard by a sessions court on July 23, and any damage to the turf before then would cause irreparable harm to the specialized facility. He also requested permission for the association to inspect the ground, though Justice Shankar declined to issue a formal order on the matter, advising the parties to discuss the request directly.
Legal Battle Over Historic Sports Venue
The dispute began after the central government issued an eviction order on May 20, taking possession of the Jaipur Polo Ground while the association’s legal appeals were still pending.
The association subsequently petitioned a sessions court, which serves as the appellate body under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. In its application, the sporting body sought to reclaim possession, block the enforcement of the May 20 eviction, and prevent any demolition, digging, or alterations to the land.
Following the sessions court’s rejection of that interim application on June 18, the association escalated the challenge to the High Court, calling the lower court’s decision erroneous. The association argues that the polo ground is a highly specialized athletic facility requiring continuous professional care—such as mowing, irrigation, and weed control—and warned that unchecked excavation or use of heavy machinery would permanently destroy the turf.
