How can you enter & fence public land without formal allotment?’: Gujarat HC to TMC MP Yusuf Pathan

4 min readJun 8, 2026 07:25 PM IST

In August 2025, a single judge of the High Court upheld the government’s decision, ruling that Pathan’s long possession of the land without payment did not create any legal right (File Photo)

The Gujarat High Court on Monday came down heavily on former India cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan over his occupation of a plot belonging to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC), orally questioning how Pathan took possession of public land without completing any allotment formalities or paying for it.

Hearing Pathan’s appeal against an earlier High Court order declaring him an “encroacher”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray orally asked how the cricketer had entered and fenced the plot despite there being no final allotment in his favour.

“You cannot enter into physical possession of any property without completion of formalities,” the bench orally observed, adding that anyone occupying public land without due process cannot seek the court’s intervention. The court also indicated that Pathan may have to vacate the land within two weeks and could face damages for “use and occupation” of the public property.

Senior advocate Shalin Mehta, who appeared for Pathan, submitted that an October 1999 Gujarat government policy entitled international cricketers land allotments under certain conditions and said the document had not been placed before the single judge earlier. He contended that the VMC had resolved to allot the 978 sq. metre plot to Pathan at market value and that the proposal had been approved by the corporation’s general body.

However, the bench orally noted that the proposal never took the shape of a valid allotment because the mandatory state government approval was not granted. The judges stressed that the corporation had no independent policy permitting allotments without auction. The court also questioned municipal officials who allegedly allowed Pathan to fence and occupy the land and warned of an “inquiry” into the matter. When Pathan’s advocate submitted that the cricketer had not actively “used” the plot, the court remarked that fencing a public plot without formal allotment would amount to an offence.

The HC will next hear the matter on June 15.

VMC decision, ‘no’ from govt and a notice after his poll win

Days after he was elected as a Trinamool Congress (TMC) Lok Sabha MP from Baharampur in West Bengal in June 2024, Yusuf Pathan received a notice from the BJP-run Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) to clear an alleged encroachment on a plot of land that belongs to the civic body.

The notice served on Pathan on June 6, two days after the Lok Sabha results, by the Land Estate department pertained to a land measuring 978 square metres in TP Scheme Number 22 and Final Plot Number 90, located adjacent to the bungalow of the Pathan family in Tandalja area of the city, where the cricketers — Irfan and Yusuf– reside with their families and parents.

Story continues below this ad

The notice stated that the VMC had, earlier in March 2012, received a request from Pathan to allot the said land. “As per the process, your application was referred to the Standing Committee and thereafter to the General Board after the valuation committee decided the minimum upset value. Thereafter the application was forwarded to the State government of Gujarat for approval in order to lease the land for a period of 99 years under a special case without conducting an auction. However, as per the reply received from the Gujarat Urban Development Department on June 9, 2014, the request to lease the said land to you was rejected. The same had been communicated to you via a letter… However, it has come to light that you have encroached upon the said land of the VMC and you are hereby directed to clear the encroachment at the earliest,” the notice stated.

In August 2025, a single judge of the High Court upheld the government’s decision, ruling that Pathan’s long possession of the land without payment did not create any legal right, while observing that granting leniency to celebrities, who are public role models, would give a “wrong message to the society” and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.