Yusuf Pathan Encroached On Govt Land, No Allotment Order Was Issued By Vadodara Municipality: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court recently upheld an order directing Vadodara Municipal Corporation to take steps to remove encroachment of a plot by former cricketer and TMC MP Yusuf Pathan. 

In doing so the court held that "long possession" of the plot by Pathan, without paying consideration, would not give him any rights over the land adding that it cannot perpetuate such an illegality. Finding Pathan to be an encroacher the court said that there was no order passed allotting the plot to him.

It also reiterated that celebrities are social role models and by virtue of their fame and public presence they wield substantial influence on public behaviour hence granting leniency to them despite their non-abeyance of law gives wrong message to the society. 

Pathan had challenged a June 6, 2024 notice/order of the state government, rejecting Vadodara Municipal Corporation's (VMC) proposal to allot a plot measuring 978 Sq.meters in favour of Pathan on lease for 99 years, without holding any public auction. The order further directed VMC to do the needful to remove encroachment from plot in question on urgent basis.

Pathan had sent a representation for allotment of the land in 2012; a decision was taken to ascertain market value and a proposal to allot the same to the petitioner without following auction procedure was considered by VMC. 

Justice Mauna M Bhatt in her order noted that in the VMC's General body meeting held on 08.06.2012, a decision was taken to refer the matter regarding Pathan's application to the VMC's Commissioner because such powers are assigned to Municipal Commissioner. 

The court noted that the Municipal Commissioner referred the matter to State Government for its opinion. Thereafter a communication dated 25.06.2012 was forwarded to the petitioner bringing to his notice these facts. It thus said:

"If a close reading of the said communication dated 25.06.2012 is done, it refers to the earlier resolutions of the Corporation dated 30.03.2012 and 08.06.2012 for the plot and its valuation per sq.mtrs. The communication further states that the allotment is proposed to be given without putting the plot in question to auction, hence a sanction is sought from the State Government and if the sanction is accorded, further procedure will be initiated. This communication dated 25.06.2012, was in response to the petitioner's letter dated 03.03.2012. Thereafter, efforts were made to get response from the State authorities on the proposal sent by Municipal Commissioner. After communication dated 25.06.2012, one more letter dated 30.05.2013 was addressed by the petitioner stating that he is awaiting response from the Corporation and ready to pay the price fixed as per the valuation done and once a response is received, he shall do the needful to get the possession of Plot No.90. After communication dated 30.05.2013 of the petitioner, no order of respondent – Corporation for allotting plot in question was passed"

The court noticed that on the contrary, a communication dated 09.06.2014 issued by the State Government was received by the Municipal Commissioner, rejecting the application of the petitioner.

"Therefore, the petitioner had no right to occupy the plot in question which is why the submission of the Corporation that the petitioner has encroached the land in question, in the opinion of this Court is correct. This Court says so also because without paying consideration or without any order of allotment in favour of petitioner, it would be improper on part of the petitioner to occupy the land in question and this action would amount to encroachment by creating a boundary wall," the court said. 

The court said that unless and until the petitioner has been ordered to make payment or granted allotment, "he cannot be stated to be the owner of plot in question and therefore, also the allegation of encroachment, in the opinion of this Court is correct".

The court also said that the petitioner had not denied his possession of the plot in question.

"For that matter, long possession or willingness to pay at this stage, will not give any right over the land in question to the petitioner. Thus, this illegality in the opinion of this Court shall not be permitted to be perpetuated. Therefore, when the petitioner is found to be encroacher of the plot in question, strict action in accordance with law is expected from the respondent corporation," the court said.

It also rejected Pathan's  submission that he may be treated as bonafide purchaser as he is ready to purchase the plot in question at the market rate applicable as on date, observing that this would amount to "regularizing encroachment" in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

"Not a single communication the petitioner is able to place on record justifying his efforts to make payment. In other words, the petitioner simply enjoyed the plot in question without there being any right over it," the court said. 

On petitioner's submission that since he has represented the Country on international level in Cricket and being an elected member of parliament he owes certain added responsibilities and duties towards laws of this country the court said:

"In this context, this Court would like to rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3528 of 2025 wherein it is held that celebrities serve as social role models and their accountability is greater not lesser. The celebrities by virtue of their fame and public presence wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values granting leniency to such persons despite their non-abeyance of law gives wrong message to the society and undermines public confidence in the judicial system. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner shall not be permitted to remain in the occupation of the plot in question which he has encroached".

The court thus dismissed the petition.

Case title: YUSUF MEHMUDKHAN PATHAN v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

R/SCA NO. 9027 of 2024

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior advocate Yatin Oza, advocates Shyam M Shah and Jay S Shah. 

Counsel for State: AGP Suman Motla MS SUMAN MOTLA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Counsel for VMC: Advocate Maulik Nanavati. 

Click Here To Read/Download Order