NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has agreed to hear an appeal filed by Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Private Limited against an appellate court order in the long-running property dispute involving the iconic Ambassador Hotel block at Sujan Singh Park in central Delhi, news agency ANI reported.As per the ANI news report, Justice Tejas Karia, sitting as vacation judge, directed that records of the trial court and the district court be placed before the high court. The matter has now been listed before the roster bench on July 23, 2026.As per the report, the company has also sought interim protection after the Union government issued an eviction notice on June 11, 2026, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, raising concerns over possible eviction proceedings.Appearing for Sir Sobha Singh & Sons, Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Sudhir Nandrajog sought urgent relief while the company’s stay application remains pending, the report said.Representing the Union of India, Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish K Dixit, along with Government Pleader Adhiraj Singh, Deputy L&DO Kunal Bhaskar and advocates Aakash Tyagi and Nishant Bahuguna, opposed the request for immediate protection.The Centre told the court that proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act were separate and independent from the appellate court judgment. However, the company pointed out that the eviction notice itself referred to the June 9, 2026 judgment and stated that the action was being initiated in compliance with that order.The court recorded the Centre’s statement that proceedings under the Public Premises Act would be conducted independently and would not be influenced by the appellate court judgment. In view of the assurance, the court did not pass any interim order staying the appellate court’s decision at this stage.Decades-old dispute over Ambassador Hotel blockThe dispute relates to the northern block of Sujan Singh Park, where the Ambassador Hotel was constructed under a Government Grant and Agreement to Lease executed in 1945.Sir Sobha Singh & Sons has argued that the government was fully aware of the construction of the hotel and had supported the project by approving building plans, supervising construction, providing scarce wartime construction material and granting formal approval in 1951.The company has claimed that despite supporting and benefiting from the Ambassador Hotel project for decades, the government later alleged that the building violated the terms of the grant and attempted re-entry into the property in 1960.According to the company, the government occupied flats in the complex, assured the hotel operator that it would not interfere with hotel operations and continued to benefit from the arrangement before later alleging misuse.Company challenges appellate court rulingThe appeal comes after nearly five decades of litigation. Sir Sobha Singh & Sons has relied on a 2009 trial court decree, which had ruled in favour of the company on all 16 issues involved in the suit.The trial court had held that no misuse of the Ambassador Hotel property was proved, that the government could not claim breach after approving the construction, and that the re-entry action was not in accordance with the agreement between the parties.The trial court had also directed the government to execute the perpetual lease contemplated under the original grant.Challenging the appellate court’s order, the company has argued that the court wrongly held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction while simultaneously examining the merits of the dispute and overturning the trial court decree.The company has further argued that the Government Grants Act does not bar civil suits and alleged that the appellate court ignored key evidence and wrongly interpreted Supreme Court judgments.‘Govt cannot seek forfeiture after benefiting from arrangement’Sir Sobha Singh & Sons has also relied on principles of estoppel and unjust enrichment, arguing that the government cannot seek forfeiture under the grant while ignoring its own obligations under the same arrangement.The company has urged the High Court to restore the 2009 decree and set aside the appellate court judgment, claiming that the decision overlooked decades of government approvals and acceptance of the Ambassador Hotel project and wrongly upheld an extra-judicial re-entry into the property.(With agency inputs)
