Members of the Delhi Gymkhana Club on Tuesday expressed relief after the Centre assured the Delhi High Court that no forcible possession of the club premises would be taken on June 5, easing fears among ex-servicemen and staff dependent on the 113-year-old institution.The assurance came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that any eviction proceedings against the club, located in Lutyens’ Delhi, would be carried out strictly in accordance with the law and only after due notice to the occupants.Following the submission, Justice Avneesh Jhingan said no interim order was required on the lawsuits by members and staff of the club against the Centre’s May 22 order asking the club to hand over the premises.A dramatic courtroom face-off unfolded in the High Court as senior lawyers, constitutional arguments and competing claims over the control of the iconic Gymkhana Club dominated the proceedings in a closely watched land dispute involving the Centre.Justice Jhingan issued summons on two civil suits filed by club member Vijay Khurana and the Staff Welfare Association of the Gymkhana Club challenging the Centre’s May 22 order directing the club to vacate its 27.3-acre premises at 2, Safdarjung Road in Lutyens’ Delhi by June 5.The court, however, refused to stay the government’s order after the Solicitor General assured the Bench that the authorities would not resort to any coercive or forcible takeover and would proceed strictly under the legal framework.Observing that the apprehensions raised by the petitioners were still speculative, Justice Jhingan noted that no proceedings had yet been initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and that legal remedies would remain available if such a situation arose later.The court also recorded the Centre’s statement that any eviction, if undertaken, would follow prior notice and due process.The hearing saw repeated interruptions and sharp exchanges as senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought an urgent hearing of a separate petition filed by the club’s last elected governing body. Sibal urged the court not to delay the matter and said the elected body also wished to challenge the government action alongside the existing petitioners.Defending the Centre’s position, Solicitor General Mehta referred to Clause 4 of the original 1928 lease deed, which allows the government to re-enter the property, if required for public purpose. He assured the court that the authorities would act only within the bounds of law and not through sudden physical dispossession.At one stage, the Bench specifically asked whether the government intended to take possession of the premises on June 5. The Solicitor General responded that possession, if at all, would only be taken through legally prescribed procedure.Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Khurana, argued that ordinary members of the club were left vulnerable after the National Company Law Tribunal replaced the earlier elected management with a 15-member committee nominated by the Centre. He contended that those now running the club could no longer be expected to independently resist the government’s move.The Bench, however, remarked that the committee members were nominees and could not automatically be equated with the government itself.Singhvi also pointed to earlier interim protection granted in matters involving the Delhi Race Club and the Polo Club. However, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma informed the court that the protection granted to the Delhi Race Club had already been lifted by a Division Bench earlier in the day.In that connected matter, a Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya permitted the Centre to resume eviction proceedings against the Delhi Race Club over its continued occupation of nearly 53 acres of government land on Lok Kalyan Marg after setting aside an earlier interim order.In the Gymkhana proceedings, Sibal argued that the Centre’s reliance on Clause 4 raised serious constitutional concerns and claimed that even if the government had powers over the land, it could not bypass procedural safeguards.Senior advocate Jayant Mehta, appearing for the Staff Welfare Association, expressed concern that the government-appointed management could facilitate handing over possession in a manner that would weaken the pending legal challenge.The Centre has maintained that the land near the Prime Minister’s residence and other sensitive installations is required for defence and public security infrastructure.Khurana, meanwhile, has argued that the government’s justification remains vague, lacks particulars and amounts to an arbitrary attempt to take control of the historic institution without compensation or proper acquisition proceedings.