A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal issued notice to the Centre and sought their response on her appeal challenging a single judge's August 19 order asking her to vacate the 7 Akbar Road bungalow in Lutyen's Delhi that she was residing in.
In her appeal, she has sought a direction to the Centre to provide her and her sons with accommodation on parity with others who enjoyed similar security status and have been given government accommodation.
Her petition claims that she and her sons were living in a rented flat which is not appropriate on security grounds.
In her appeal, she has contended that the August 19 order of the single judge mentioned no date and time of eviction and "hence the very act of summoning and pressing into service of armed public auxiliary/servants of different forces" for giving effect to the order was in violation of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act.
that if her husband and father-in-law, both of whom are 'Z plus' protectees, could be secured in private accommodation, there is "no reason" why she and her sons cannot be.
She contended that her husband, Omar, and father-in-law, Farooq Abdullah, were temporary visitors to Delhi and can be protected in private premises for the short duration, unlike her who is a permanent resident here.
The single judge in her order had said Payal and her sons were "liable to be evicted forthwith", after terming their entitlement to retain the bungalow as "wholly illegal".
Prior to the high court's August 19 decision, on August 16, a trial court here had asked her to move out of the house. Three days later, Justice Indermeet Kaur had asked Payal's counsel "Will you gracefully evict or I should pass an order?"
However, as the counsel had refused, the high court had said it would pass a detailed order later on her plea.
In its 15-page judgement, the high court had said that Payal and her sons were deriving their entitlement to retain the bungalow only through the official position of Omar Abdullah and "have no independent right or claim in this property".
The single judge had also rejected Payal's argument that she and her sons were central protectees by saying that as per a secret document submitted by MHA, their security status was granted by the state of Jammu and Kashmir because they were the wife and children of Omar Abdullah.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
