Delhi High Court Delays Jaipur Polo Ground Dispute Hearing

The Delhi High Court postponed the hearing of the Indian Polo Association's challenge concerning the Jaipur Polo Ground till July 9. The court emphasized no immediate need for activity at the site since the Central Government already holds possession. Preservation of the turf remains a key concern.

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, deferred the hearing of the Indian Polo Association's (IPA) legal challenge regarding the Jaipur Polo Ground to July 9. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that there was no pressing requirement for the Central Government to conduct activities at the site, as it has already taken possession of the land.

Senior Advocate Kirtiman Singh, representing the Indian Polo Association, requested the court to ensure no alterations occur to the historic polo turf until the dispute's resolution. Singh expressed concerns that while they might lose the case, the preservation of the turf for an upcoming polo season remains critical.

The Court noted that the Association had appealed against a Patiala House Court order without actually presenting the contested order. Singh mentioned a delay in receiving a copy of the order, which reportedly dismissed the Association's plea against the government's eviction notice.

Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit acknowledged the uncertainty about whether the order had been issued, citing the limited hours of the vacation bench. "We are not aware if the order has been pronounced," Dixit submitted. Justice Shankar remarked that tearing up the site was unnecessary at the moment since possession was already with the government.

Dixit reassured the court that the government would comply with previous commitments to refrain from interfering with the site. The eviction issue stems from a May 20 order, which removed the Indian Polo Association from the 15.20-acre Jaipur Polo Ground in New Delhi's Race Course area. The association argues that any alterations to this internationally recognized facility would cause irreparable harm.

The litigation previously appeared before a High Court's vacation bench, where a stay on eviction was not granted due to the government's possession of the property. However, the court recorded the Centre's promise not to dig on the playing surface, focusing only on boundary demarcation. The High Court is scheduled to reassess the situation on July 9, following the Centre's assurances.