In a major setback to Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP and former Indian cricketer Yusuf Pathan, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed his petition in the Vadodara government land dispute and declared him an “encroacher.” The court ruled that Pathan’s continued occupation of the land amounted to illegal possession and emphasised that being a celebrity does not entitle anyone to special facilities or exemptions under the law.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Mauna Bhatt on August 21, 2025, and uploaded to the court’s website on September 2, upheld the Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s (VMC) and state government’s stand against Pathan. The judge categorically stated that “celebrities serve as social role models and their accountability is greater, not lesser. Granting leniency to such persons despite their non-abeyance of law gives a wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.”
The case revolves around Plot No. 90, measuring 978 square meters, adjacent to Pathan’s bungalow in Vadodara. In 2012, Pathan had applied to lease the land for 99 years. While the Vadodara Municipal Commissioner, the standing committee, and the general body of VMC approved his request, the Gujarat government rejected it in June 2014, as the land was to be allotted without a public auction and therefore required state approval. Despite the rejection, Pathan fenced the property and took possession of it. For nearly a decade, VMC failed to act, but in 2024, amid political uproar, the corporation issued him a notice to vacate the land. Instead of complying, Pathan challenged both the municipal notice and the state government’s rejection order in the High Court.
Represented by senior advocate Yatin Oza, Pathan argued that the VMC, under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, had the authority to lease property without state interference. Citing the 74th Constitutional Amendment, he claimed that local bodies enjoyed autonomy. He further contended that the corporation’s approval in 2012 implied validity and that its silence for 12 years strengthened his case. Oza also argued that as a national cricketer and sitting MP, Pathan required the land for personal and family security. Additionally, Pathan expressed his willingness to pay the current market price for the property, citing Supreme Court rulings to bolster his position.
The state government and VMC, represented by senior counsel Maulik Nanavati, rejected these arguments. Nanavati asserted that no individual could occupy government or municipal land without lawful approval. Since the land was to be allotted without a public auction, state approval was mandatory, and its rejection in 2014 invalidated Pathan’s claim. He further pointed out that Pathan had encroached on the land without paying a single rupee for 12 years and that his present offer to pay market rates could not “undo the illegality.”
Addressing Pathan’s security concerns, Nanavati argued that the MP had never sought state security or provided evidence of any threat. He stressed that a public figure like Pathan should be “more accountable, not less,” and added that if he truly wanted the land, he must bid for it in a public auction like any other citizen.
After examining the arguments, Justice Mauna Bhatt dismissed Pathan’s plea. The court held that the 2014 rejection by the state government nullified Pathan’s claim and that his long-term occupation amounted to illegal encroachment, noting that “holding land unlawfully for years does not create ownership rights.” The court rejected his offer to pay market rates, stating that it would set a “dangerous precedent” of regularising encroachments.
Although the judge acknowledged that VMC had been negligent by not acting against Pathan earlier, she clarified that such lapses could not legitimise his unlawful possession. The court directed the municipal corporation to take stringent action to demolish the encroachment but refrained from imposing a financial penalty due to the civic body’s prolonged inaction.
The dispute traces back to 2012, when VMC authorities initially approved Pathan’s lease application. Two years later, the state government rejected the proposal, but Pathan continued to occupy the land. For over a decade, the matter remained stagnant until renewed protests in 2024 prompted the VMC to issue an eviction notice. Pathan then filed his petition in the High Court, which was ultimately dismissed on August 21, 2025, with the order made public on September 2.
Comments