The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by former Indian cricketer and current Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Yusuf Pathan in connection with a prolonged land dispute in Vadodara. Delivering the verdict, Justice Mauna Bhatt declared Pathan to be an “encroacher” on government land and emphasised that his possession was nothing more than unlawful occupation.

According to records, the order was pronounced on 21st August, but it was only uploaded to the High Court’s website on 2nd September. A copy of the order is available with OpIndia, confirming the final stance of the court.

The controversy concerns a government-owned land parcel in Vadodara, which, as authorities claimed, was occupied by Pathan without any proper approval. The Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) had issued him a notice earlier, instructing him to vacate the land.

Instead of vacating, Pathan chose to approach the High Court. He challenged both the municipal notice and the related order passed by the state government. After extensive hearings, the court made its position clear — Pathan’s possession of the land could not be defended in law and therefore amounted to encroachment.

Pathan’s counterarguments and constitutional claims before the court

In his defence, Pathan was represented by senior advocate Yatin Oza. The lawyer argued that the municipal corporation functioned as an independent authority under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and therefore had the power to lease out properties without requiring the state government’s involvement. He also referred to the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which guarantees autonomy to local bodies, stating that interference by the state government was unconstitutional.

Oza further told the court that since the corporation itself had referred the proposal to the state government, Pathan did not raise objections at that time, as everything appeared in order. He cited earlier Supreme Court judgments to argue that even if the state government withheld approval, the corporation’s powers remained unaffected.

Adding a personal dimension, Oza emphasised that Pathan was an international cricketer and a Member of Parliament, a figure who had represented India at the highest level. He highlighted that Pathan was prepared to pay the prevailing market price for the land. He also said that the silence of the municipal corporation for over 12 years created the impression that Pathan’s possession should be considered legitimate.

Pathan additionally argued that the land was adjacent to his bungalow, and for him, the matter was not merely legal but also one of personal and family security.

Government’s rebuttal: security concerns rejected and encroachment proved

On the other side, senior lawyer Maulik Nanavati, representing both the municipal corporation and the state government, strongly countered Pathan’s arguments. He stated that no private individual could occupy government or municipal land without official approval. Since the plot was to be given without a public auction, state government approval was mandatory, which had already been denied in 2014.

Nanavati pointed out that despite the rejection, Pathan had fenced off the land and taken it into his control without any lawful order in his favour. This act, he argued, was a clear case of encroachment. He further noted that Pathan had not paid the municipal corporation any amount over the last 12 years, and his recent willingness to pay the market price did not erase the illegality of his earlier actions.

The state government also dismissed Pathan’s claim of a security need. Nanavati told the court that Pathan had never sought official security from the state and had not provided evidence of any threat to his safety. On the contrary, he asserted that a public figure like a cricketer and Member of Parliament was expected to follow the law even more diligently than an ordinary citizen. If Pathan genuinely wanted the land, he could have participated in a public auction like everyone else.

Court’s observations: no ownership rights in illegal possession

After carefully considering both sides, Justice Mauna Bhatt ruled that since the proposal had been formally rejected by the state government on 9th June 2014, Pathan held no legal entitlement to the land. The court underlined that long-term possession of property obtained unlawfully does not create ownership rights.

The court also dismissed Pathan’s willingness to pay the current market value, pointing out that “possession of land illegally for a long period of time does not give rise to title.” Justice Bhatt remarked that accepting such an argument would set a dangerous precedent where illegal encroachment could later be legalised simply by offering to pay.

The judge went further to stress 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 a wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.”

At the same time, the court acknowledged that the municipal corporation had been lax in its duty, failing to act against Pathan for years after the rejection in 2014. Still, Justice Bhatt clarified that this lapse did not strengthen Pathan’s case in any manner. The petition was dismissed, and the municipal corporation was instructed to take strong measures to demolish the encroachment. Although no monetary penalty was imposed on Pathan due to the corporation’s own delay, the verdict firmly established that his occupation was unlawful and could never be validated.

Background: how the dispute began in 2012

The roots of this dispute go back to 2012. Yusuf Pathan, already the owner of a bungalow in Vadodara, had applied to lease an adjacent plot of land — Plot No. 90, measuring about 978 square metres — for a period of 99 years.

Initially, things appeared to move in his favour. The Vadodara Municipal Commissioner sanctioned the application, and in March 2012, the corporation’s standing committee gave its approval as well. By June 2012, the municipal corporation’s general body also cleared the proposal.

However, since the land was being allotted without a public auction, the proposal was sent to the Gujarat state government for clearance. The government rejected the proposal. Despite this, Pathan allegedly took possession of the plot.

For years, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation did not take action. The matter resurfaced in 2024, sparking political debate and public protest. Following this, the corporation issued a notice to Pathan, directing him to vacate the land. Instead of complying, Pathan approached the Gujarat High Court, challenging both the municipal notice and the state government’s rejection order.