Click the Play button to listen to article

Cricketer Yusuf Pathan on Monday (August 31) withdrew from Gujarat High Court his appeal against a single judge's August 2025 order which had found him to be an "encroacher" on government land in Vadodara after noting that no allotment order was issued to him and he was occupying the site without paying consideration.

Previously, Pathan told the high court that he is pursuing his case under a policy before the State government under which other cricketers have also been allotted land and had sought time to pursue the same. 

Today when the matter was taken up, senior advocate Shalin Mehta appearing for Pathan submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray, 

"We have repeatedly sought time because we were waiting for the Corporation to respond. Because we are saying that there is a circular which allows international cricketers to be given a plot. I think I will withdrawn because I haven't heard anything from them. I have taken instructions from my client...if it is to happen, it will happen outside the court; otherwise it wont happen. I'm extremely sorry I thought that we will be able to convince them, but nothing has come from them."

Permitting the same, the court in its order dictated:

"learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant had instructed him to withdraw his appeal. Im view of this statement appeal is dismissed as withdrawn". 

Before the single judge 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.

The single judge had 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.

The single judge had 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.

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. 

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

R/CA/2258/2026 IN F/LPA/7274/2026 IN R/SCA/9027/2024

Tags: