The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to stay the demolition of the house of national pistol shooting coach Samaresh Jung in the Civil Lines here, saying in the absence of any legal right over the property which was sub-leased to Jung’s family, no relief can be granted.

Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petition filed by Sameer Jung, the brother of the coach, challenging a March 1, 2024 notice which declared all occupants (approximately 1,000) spread over 32 acres in the Khyber Pass market area as unauthorised and initiated a blanket demolition drive.

Samaresh Jung, who coached Olympic medal winner Manu Bhaker, also resides in the same property in which the family was legally inducted as sub-tenant about 60-70 years back, the lawyer told the court, adding that they were not given any opportunity of hearing by the authorities.

As the petitioner’s counsel told the court that Jung, who brought laurels to the country at several sporting events, risked being forced out of the house, the judge said, “It sounds very hard but the fact is there. Already some action has bee taken and some houses have been demolished. Making an exception will be difficult." The counsel for the Land and Development Office (L&DO) submitted that the coach must have done some great service to the country but ultimately it is public land and no exception can be made.

The counsel said the petitioner has shown no entitlement and no exception can be made as other houses have already been removed.

The petition, filed through advocates Rohit Yadav, Sahil Siddiqui and Gultash Guron, sought quashing of the March 1 notice and urged the court to direct the authorities not to evict the petitioner and his family from the property in Bhutta Singh Building in Khyber Pass.

It said the petitioner’s grandparents were the original sub-tenants of the property in the early 1940s and his grandfather, Colonel Sher Jung was a freedom fighter and a war hero.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the notice is liable to be struck down as it violates the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to the family, denying them an opportunity to put forth their case.

He said the notice was bad in law, vague, unsubstantiated and arbitrary, and the authorities failed to follow due procedure of law to evict legal tenants and occupants.

The court said it has considered the submissions but remains unconvinced.

It said the March 1 notice issued to the occupants was the subject matter of another petition which was heard and dismissed by a single judge. Thereafter, a division bench rejected the appeal.

Justice Narula said the decision of the division bench was squarely applicable in the present matter and the petitioner independently does not have any right over the property itself.

“Their right is asserted as the sub-lessee or a sub tenant of the lessee. The fact that the petitioner at some point of time did make payments to the L&DO which were accepted would not create any legal relationship between the parties and put the petitioner to the pedestal of a lessee.

“There is no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondents.

There are no documents on record to indicate that the petitioner after 1978 made any payments to the respondents,” the court said.

It added that although the petitioner’s counsel has argued that the petitioner was paying property tax, this would not give them any right over the property.

While carrying out the demolition drive, L&DO has already bulldozed several houses in the area.

On July 9, a single judge of the high court had dismissed a separate petition by residents of Khyber Pass Hostel challenging the demolition notice issued on March 3. A division bench, on July 29, upheld the order and dismissed the appeal.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.