Fri, Oct 28, 2016 | updated 06:06 AM IST

Delhi HC asks Payal Abdullah to 'gracefully' vacate Govt. accommodation

Updated: Aug 19, 2016 15:22 IST

New Delhi, Aug 19 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Friday asked Payal Abdullah, the estranged wife of former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah, to 'gracefully' vacate the government accommodation.

However, she refused to do so and asked the Court to pass an order.

The High Court said a detailed order will be passed with regard to the time, within which she and her children will have to vacate the accommodation

Court also directed Delhi Police to provide security to Payal and her children, who are 'Z' and 'Z plus' security protectees, during their stay in the capital.

Payal has sought quashing of the eviction notice issued on June 30 by the Estate Officer of the Jammu and Kashmir government for vacating Bungalow no. 7 on Akbar Road.

On Tuesday, Payal failed to get any relief from a Delhi court which directed her to vacate the bungalow in Lutyen's Zone where she has been living since 1999.

On the last date of hearing on August 12, the high court had extended till August 16 the interim protection from eviction granted on July 12.

However, on August 16 when the matter came before Justice Indermeet Kaur, Payal's counsel sought an adjournment and it was renotifed for hearing on August 19.

She had also approached the trial court seeking stay of the June 30 eviction order issued by the estate officer of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, contending that the order was passed without allowing her to lead evidence and without granting her any personal hearing.

While Payal enjoys a 'Z' category security cover, each of her sons has 'Z' plus security, comprising of a total 94 personnel.

She has claimed that so many personnel, their weapons and other security arrangements cannot be accommodated at her private flat in the city.

With regard to the Centre and the state's claim that the 7, Akbar Road bungalow was meant for the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, she has told the high court that it was allotted to her husband from 1999 onwards and was never cancelled, even when he was not an MP or an MLA. (ANI)