Delhi High Court Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stayed a trial court's June 9, 2026 order that had upheld the government's right to take back possession of the 7.58-acre property at Sujan Singh Park in central Delhi, which includes the Ambassador Hotel.

The court noted that Sir Sobha Singh & Sons had remained in long and continuous possession since the 1960s, with numerous persons residing in flats constructed on the property. The court held that the balance of convenience lay in maintaining the existing position until the regular second appeal was decided.

The litigation has remained pending since 1960. The dispute stemmed from a Centre notice issued in February 1959 directing removal of construction, followed by a letter dated August 5, 1960 claiming re-entry effective July 29, 1960. In October 1960, the court restrained the government through an interim injunction.

The suit was decreed in the company's favour on August 31, 2009, with the trial court declaring the government's February 1959 notice "wrong and illegal". However, on June 9, 2026, the trial court set aside the decree on Centre's appeal.

Sir Sobha Singh & Sons argued it had remained in continuous possession since 1943 and that dispossession would cause irreparable harm to the establishments housed in the property. The Estate Officer issued a show-cause notice on June 11. The Centre's lawyer stated the grant had been rightly cancelled and proceedings under the Public Premises Act had been initiated.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on August 10 stayed the June 9, 2026 judgment and decree, directing parties to maintain status quo on the suit property until disposal of the second appeal and restraining the Centre from acting on that judgment.

Dispute concerns an Agreement for Lease executed October 8, 1945, for land measuring about 7.58 acres at Sujan Singh Park. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd approached civil court in 1960 challenging government's decision to re-enter the property and seeking specific performance of the lease agreement.

Litigation has continued over six decades. Company's possession has remained protected since 1960 and continuous since 1943.

Dispute primarily concerns construction and use of a building described as the "Hotel Block", alleged misuse of portions of Servants' Quarters and 31 garages in Servants' Block.

Company claimed Hotel Block was constructed with government knowledge and approval. High Court noted correspondence indicated construction undertaken with knowledge and approval of competent government officials, and an ex-post-facto sanction was granted for the hotel in 1951.

Union government alleged breaches of grant terms, in 1959 directed company to remove alleged breaches, subsequently informed company it had re-entered property effective July 29, 1960.

In 2009, trial court decreed suit in company's favour, holding buildings constructed in accordance with government instructions and alleged misuse not established.

First Appellate Court's June 9, 2026 judgment reversed trial court decision, dismissed suit, held reliefs sought did not constitute competent suit under Government Grants Act, 1895.

Company challenged before High Court, raising substantial questions of law. High Court noted need to examine whether Section 3 of Government Grants Act excluded civil court jurisdiction to interpret grant, determine if terms breached, and examine if government action accorded with grant.

High Court observed First Appellate Court had not adequately considered contemporaneous communications concerning Hotel Block construction and its regularisation.

Court noted two divergent findings from trial and appellate courts and substantial questions of law already framed. Held suit property needed preservation until questions adjudicated.

High Court also considered Centre's proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. While Centre argued those proceedings independent of June 9 judgment, High Court observed June 11 show-cause notice prima facie indicated eviction proceedings commenced following appellate court's decision.

Court clarified stayed June 9 judgment would not form basis for initiating or continuing proceedings under Public Premises Act, but Union of India remains at liberty to pursue remedies independently of stayed judgment.

Delhi High Court allowed proceedings before Estate Officer in Sujan Singh Park (North) eviction dispute to continue under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and directed they be video-recorded.

Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. filed applications seeking urgent hearing and interim relief against eviction proceedings, alleging unfair conduct.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar heard the matter with Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Parag Tripathi and Sanjiv Sen for petitioner; Senior Advocate Sudhir Nandrajog for Residents Welfare Association, Sujan Singh Park (North); and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit for Union of India.

Petitioner's counsel argued Estate Officer proceedings were unsatisfactory, with Estate Officer acting as mouthpiece of Land and Development Office (L&DO) officials and petitioner's counsel not given proper opportunity for submissions. Argued Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction due to bona fide dispute regarding ownership and legal status, citing Supreme Court's Kaikhosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji v. Union of India decision that such disputes should be decided through regular civil proceedings, not summary procedure. Also alleged showcase notice referred to documents not supplied to petitioner, violating natural justice principles.

Central Government counsel opposed writ petition as premature but agreed to video-recording of proceedings.

Court found writ petition prima facie maintainable under Supreme Court precedent but expressed no opinion on petitioner's allegations. Direction for videography issued only to allay apprehensions regarding conduct of proceedings.

Court directed Estate Officer to take up maintainability and jurisdiction issue on August 5 after parties complete pleadings. Main writ petition listed for August 17. Parties permitted to complete pleadings and file written submissions not exceeding three pages at least 48 hours before next hearing.

Ambassador Hotel, owned by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited, filed a petition in Delhi High Court challenging an eviction notice issued by the central government on June 11. The notice concerns 7.58 acres at Sujan Singh Park (North), comprising the hotel and several flats. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued notice to the Centre and Land and Development Office (L&DO), asking for their response. The company challenged eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act, terming the notice illegal. The petition claimed uninterrupted possession of the property since 1943 and alleged the Estate Officer had not considered its submissions or permitted it to file documents. The company sought a stay on proceedings and claimed the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue the eviction notice.

Delhi High Court issued notice on writ petition by Sir Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt Ltd challenging eviction proceedings initiated by Land & Development Office under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, regarding Sujan Singh Park (North) property. High Court declined interim relief staying proceedings before Estate Officer and directed petitioner to participate. Petitioner's counsel argued Estate Officer proceeded in undue haste and did not afford reasonable opportunity to present case despite preliminary objections on jurisdiction. Standing Counsel for Union of India contended writ petition not maintainable and sufficient opportunities already granted. Sir Sobha Singh and Sons sought quashing of June 11, 2026 notice under Section 4 of Public Premises Act and stay of proceedings concerning 7.58 acres of Sujan Singh Park (North). Company contends Estate Officer lacks jurisdiction as dispute over government re-entry validity pending in Delhi High Court RSA No. 108/2026. Petitioner states company in possession since 1943 under Government Grant executed 1945, and validity of alleged re-entry in 1960 is sub judice before High Court. Company argues long-standing title dispute cannot be decided in summary proceedings under Public Premises Act but must be adjudicated by civil court. Petitioner alleged Union undertook before High Court that Public Premises Act proceedings would be conducted without reference to District Judge's June 9, 2026 judgment, but Estate Officer continued without deciding preliminary jurisdictional objections.