Former cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan challenges Gujarat High Court order declaring him encroacher of government land: Read details

Former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP, Yusuf Pathan, has reportedly filed an appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court single-judge Bench order declaring him an encroacher on government land. According to Ahmedabad Mirror, Pathan has also challenged a notice of the Gujarat government dated June 6, 2024, which rejected Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s (VMC) proposal to lease him a plot for 99 years without public auction. The notice directed the VMC to remove the encroachment urgently. The High Court had rejected Pathan’s proposal to purchase the land he had been illegally occupying, holding that municipal land must be sold through auction. The court added that he can take part in the auction. The Background of the Land-Grabbing Case against Pathan In August 2025, Justice Mauna Bhatt dismissed a petition filed by Pathan challenging orders passed by the VMC and the state government asking him to vacate a piece of land illegally occupied by him. The matter relates to a piece of government-owned land in Vadodara, which, according to authorities, was encroached by Pathan.  On March 30, 2012, the VMC’s standing committee had agreed to allot the encroached plot to Pathan at a rate of ₹57,270 per square metre after a valuation exercise. The decision was also approved by the general body of the corporation in June 2012. Since the allotment was to be made without an auction, a recommendation was sent to the state government seeking its approval for the same. The state government, however, rejected the proposal in June 2014, but Pathan continued to illegally occupy the piece of land. Subsequently, in 2024, the VMC Commissioner ordered him to vacate the land, prompting him to approach the High Court against the order. Pathan claimed adverse possession over the land In his petition, Pathan had argued for the implementation of the VMC’s 2012 proposal to allot him the land without auction. He contended that the VMC is an independent body under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and has full authority to lease property without requiring the state government’s approval. He invoked the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which grants autonomy to local bodies, and claimed that the state’s interference was unconstitutional. He clarified that he did not object to the VMC seeking the approval of the state government because everything appeared positive to him. Pathan claimed that the lack of approval by the state government did not affect the power of the municipal corporation to allot the land to him. Additionally, he claimed adverse possession over the land, arguing that the VMC’s silence regarding the possession of land by him for 12 years implied that his occupation should be considered valid. Pathan cited his cricket career and position as an MP before the court Pathan also tried to win the favour of the High Court by pointing out that he was an international cricketer and a Member of Parliament. He said that he was willing to purchase the land at market price. The land in question lies right next to Pathan’s bungalow, and he cited personal and family security concerns to lay his claim on it. The VMC and the state government opposed Pathan’s claims The Counsel appearing for the corporation and the state government submitted that Pathan had no right to occupy government or municipal land without proper approval. He emphasised that if the land was to be allotted to him without auction, the approval of the state government was mandatory, but it was not given. He highlighted that despite the state government’s rejection of the VMC’s proposal, Pathan fenced the plot and kept occupying it. The counsel informed the court had not paid the corporation a single rupee in the last 12 years, and that his current offer to pay market rates could not undo the illegality. Dismissing Pathan’s claims regarding security concerns, the counsel said that Pathan never sought security from the state nor provided evidence of any threat. He argued that Pathan, being a public figure and people’s representative, is expected to follow the law even more strictly than ordinary citizens. The High Court dismissed Pathan’s petition, citing a lack of a legal right The High Court dismissed his petition, emphasising that he had no legal right to the land and that his possession constituted encroachment. The court said that holding land unlawfully for a long time does not create ownership rights. The court turned down Pathan’s request to acquire the land at market price, saying that allowing the request would set a dangerous precedent of regularising illegal occupation. The court clarified that prolonged illegal possession of government land does not give rise to title. The court asserted that celebrities have a greater accountability as they serve as role models to many and wield an influence on public behaviour and social values. It added that showing leniency towards such persons would send out a wrong message. The High Court called out the VMC for not remaining vigilant and failing to take timely action against Pathan. It did not impose any fine on Pathan as the corporation delayed in taking action against him, but it did not accept Pathan’s plea.