The Gujarat High Court on Monday raised serious questions over former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Yusuf Pathan’s occupation of a government plot in Vadodara, asking how he could take possession of the land without completing the required allotment formalities.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray was hearing Pathan’s appeal against an August 2025 order of a single judge. The earlier order had declared Pathan an “encroacher” on government land after finding that no allotment order had ever been issued in his favour and that he had been occupying the plot without paying any consideration.
During the hearing, the High Court observed that there was no completed allotment process in Pathan’s case. The judges noted that there was only a proposal to allot the land, which was ultimately rejected by the state government. The court orally remarked that no relief could be granted to a person occupying public land without completing the required legal formalities.
The bench also asked Pathan’s lawyer to seek instructions on how much time his client would need to vacate the plot. The court further indicated that it was considering imposing costs and listed the matter for further hearing on June 15.
The dispute relates to a June 6, 2024 order issued by the Gujarat government rejecting a proposal by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) to allot a 978-square-metre plot to Pathan on a 99-year lease without conducting a public auction. The government had also directed the civic body to remove the alleged encroachment from the land at the earliest.
Appearing for Pathan, senior advocate Shalin Mehta argued that an important government policy dated October 25, 1999 had not been placed before the single judge. According to Mehta, the policy deals with allotment of plots to international cricketers under certain conditions, and Pathan fulfilled all those requirements.
However, the High Court pointed out that the VMC’s decision was only a proposal and that no public auction had been conducted. Mehta responded that the VMC Standing Committee had approved allotment of the plot to Pathan at market value without an auction. The proposal was later approved by the corporation’s general body and then sent to the state government.
Mehta argued that under Section 79 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, state government approval was not necessary. The court, however, observed that if a corporation does not have its own policy governing such allotments, it must obtain state government sanction.
The judges further noted that the corporation’s general policy requires allotment of plots through auction, ensuring transparency. Since the decision to allot the plot to Pathan was taken as a one-time measure without an existing policy, state government approval was necessary.
During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel argued that being an international athlete does not automatically give a person the right to receive public property. The lawyer also pointed out that Pathan had not paid any amount towards the plot despite being in possession of it.
The High Court repeatedly questioned how Pathan entered and occupied the land when no allotment order had been issued. The bench asked who had permitted him to take possession and warned that it could order an inquiry against officials responsible for allowing such occupation.
Pathan’s counsel replied that the corporation had instructed him to fence the plot and had supported him throughout the process. The court remained unconvinced and stressed that possession of public property can only be handed over after all allotment procedures are completed.
The judges stated that fencing a public plot without legal allotment amounted to encroachment and observed that encroachment on public land is a criminal offence. The court further said that even if the land remained unused, Pathan could still be liable to pay damages for occupying public property.
When Mehta argued that the plot was not being actively used, the court responded that possession itself was enough and that keeping the land fenced was not a valid defence.
The bench also remarked that Pathan, as an international cricketer and public figure, was expected to set an example. The court said celebrities influence society and should follow the law rather than benefit from exceptions.
The judges indicated that Pathan could be required to pay damages at market rates for the period during which he remained in possession of the land. They informed his counsel in advance so that he could be prepared to address the issue at the next hearing.
Seeking more time, Mehta told the court he would return with detailed instructions and explain why the payment for the plot was never made. According to him, the state government’s rejection of the proposal was communicated much later, which contributed to the situation.
The High Court, however, said it was not inclined to grant more than two weeks and reiterated that anyone occupying public land without completing legal formalities could not expect leniency from the court.
Background of the Case:
The case dates back to 2012 when Yusuf Pathan submitted a representation seeking allotment of the plot. The Vadodara Municipal Corporation later considered a proposal to allot the land to him without conducting an auction and initiated steps to determine its market value.
In its August 2025 order, the single judge held that Pathan’s long possession of the land without payment did not create any legal rights over the property. The court found that no allotment order had ever been issued and therefore described him as an encroacher.
The single judge had also observed that celebrities serve as role models in society and that granting them special treatment despite violations of the law would send the wrong message to the public. The matter will now come up for further hearing before the Gujarat High Court on June 15.
Also Read: Yusuf Pathan Under Fire As Mahua Moitra Questions His Delhi Visit Amid TMC Crisis https://www.vibesofindia.com/yusuf-pathan-under-fire-as-mahua-moitra-questions-his-delhi-visit-amid-tmc-crisis/
