No interim relief for Indian Polo Association, Government keeps possession of the ground

The ongoing legal battle between the Indian Polo Association (IPA) and the Union of India has shifted decisively to the merits stage after a Patiala House court refused to grant interim protection against the eviction order, leaving the government in possession of the disputed premises.

While the main appeal before the appellate authority is scheduled for hearing on July 23, the matter is also set to come up before the Delhi High Court on July 9, where further proceedings in the challenge to the eviction are expected.

The dispute arises from an eviction order of May 20, passed under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Challenging the order, the IPA approached the appellate authority under Section 9 of the Act and simultaneously sought a stay on the eviction.

The matter also reached the Delhi High Court, which on June 8 directed that the stay application be decided expeditiously and recorded the Union of India’s undertaking that no steps for eviction would be taken until June 12.

The proceedings before the Patiala House court unfolded over several hearings during the court vacation. On June 12, the appellate court did not grant the prayer for a stay of the eviction order on the basis that its predecessor court and the High Court had refused to grant a stay.

This order was challenged before the Delhi High Court. On June 15, the Delhi High Court directed the appellate court to consider the stay application uninfluenced by the observations in the district court’s order of June 12. In the meantime, on June 13, the Union of India took possession of the Jaipur Polo ground.

When the matter came up again on June 17, the IPA filed a fresh application under Section 9(3), seeking a stay on the enforcement of the eviction order.

Story continues below this ad

The Union of India informed the court that it would not file a reply to either the appeal or the earlier stay application, but sought time to obtain instructions on the fresh plea, prompting the court to defer the matter to the following day in view of the urgency of the request.

Court dismisses interim application

On June 18, the appellate court rejected a fresh request for adjournment by the Union of India after noting that repeated delays had already rendered the earlier stay application infructuous because possession of the premises had meanwhile been taken over by the government.

After hearing arguments, the court dismissed the IPA’s application for interim relief.

In its order, the appellate authority held that it lacked jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Public Premises Act to issue independent injunctions or status quo directions governing the use or development of the property after eviction. It observed that, unlike civil courts exercising powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, it did not possess inherent powers to grant such relief.

Story continues below this ad

The court also found that the IPA had failed to establish a prima facie case. It noted that the association was only a lessee and relied upon a 1992 government notification that granted year-to-year extensions of the lease until the association shifted to an alternative site.

The court held that the notification could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the government to first provide alternative accommodation before seeking eviction. It also ruled that acceptance of rent by the government, including rent paid up to 2030, did not create a perpetual right to remain in possession.

Holding that the balance of convenience favoured the Union of India, the court observed that no irreparable injury could be claimed by an entity that was no longer in possession of the property.

At the same time, the court clarified that its findings were confined to the question of interim relief and would not prejudice the adjudication of the main appeal.

Story continues below this ad

All questions relating to the legality of the eviction order and the interpretation of the 1992 notification have been kept open for consideration when the appeal is heard on July 23.

When contacted, counsel for the Indian Polo Association, Major Nirvikar Singh (Retd.), said, “The order of 18.06.2026 decides only an interim application, with the court expressly recording that it reflects no opinion on the merits of our challenge. Notably, possession was taken over even before our stay application could be heard, a fact the court itself has acknowledged. The order of 18.06.2026 is already under challenge before the High Court of Delhi. The legality of the eviction remains squarely open in the main appeal on 23.07.2026. IPA will pursue all legal remedies.”

What’s next

With the dismissal of the interim application, the government continues to remain in possession of the premises. The immediate focus will now shift to the proceedings before the Delhi High Court on July 9 on the interim relief. The appellate authority at the Patiala House courts is scheduled to examine the legality of the eviction order on July 23.