'How Can You Enter A Plot Without Completing Formalities?' Gujarat HC Asks Cricketer Yusuf Pathan Over 'Encroachment' In Vadodara

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (June 8) orally asked cricketer and TMC MP Yusuf Pathan, as to how he could enter and occupy a plot in Vadodara without completing any formalities which form part of allotment process.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray was hearing Pathan's appeal against a single judge's August 2025 order which had found the cricketer 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.

During the hearing today, the court orally said that there was no allotment process in the present matter under which the plot was allotted to the appellant and there was only a proposal which was ultimately rejected by the State, adding that anybody who is in possession of public plot without completion of formalities, no indulgence can be granted to them.

As Pathan's counsel sought to get instructions on the matter, the court also orally asked the counsel to inform on as to how much time will be needed for the appellant to vacate. The court further orally indicated that it will be imposing costs and listed the matter on June 15.

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.

When the matter was called today, senior advocate Shalin Mehta appearing for Pathan submitted, "There is a very important document which was never placed before single judge. It is a state government policy of 25-10-1999 that addresses the issue of allotment of plot on certain conditions to international cricketers. That policy is not on record. I have checked the policy myself, I want it to come on record. As per the policy he will be entitled to a plot.The conditions mentions all of them are fulfilled".

At this stage the court orally remarked that it was only a proposal by VMC and that there had been no public auction.

Mehta however said, "Standing Committee of VMC resolved to allot a plot to me on market rate without auction. That went to general body, which approved. After which matter went to state government. Our case is reference to state govt is not required because of Section 79 of GPMC Act". At this stage the court orally said, if the corporation does not have policy, then it has to seek sanction of state government.

As Mehta said that Section 79 has certain conditions, the court orally said:

"There has to be a policy of corporation. Question of sanction by state government will not come if the corporation is acting under its own policy. But if it is deviating from the policy, or doing something for first time then it has to seek sanction. In this case, standing committee of corporation took a decision. This decision was a de-novo decision. For the first time taken, without there being any policy of the corporation...so there was requirement of taking sanction of state government. You cant single out a policy and give plot, when there is no policy. Your corporation policy, is that any allotment of any plot would be by way of auction. That auction may have some preferences...atleast it is an open policy. There is transparency. It is not so that one day Standing Committee took a decision..."

At this stage the respondent's counsel said that any person as an athlete appearing on international level or universal level, "has no fundamental right to get property". "In any case he cannot say that he is not going to pay a penny. That person till date has not paid a single penny. He is occupying it...," the counsel added.

As Mehta opposed the submission the court orally asked:

"How could you occupy this plot? There is no allotment in your favour. You have not paid a single penny of allotment. This was only a proposal sent to the state government. State government refused to sanction. Just answer how could you occupy this plot? How could you enter into it? This is sufficient to reject..."

Mehta said that the appellant was asked to cordon of the plot by the corporation. "I was asked by the corporation. The whole point is corporation has been with me throughout..."

At this stage the court orally said, "You can enter into a plot only after formalities of allotment are completed...You cannot enter into physical possession of any of the properties without completion of formalities. Please answer. How could you occupy this plot?...Who permitted you to occupy? Which officials. Please tell us the names, we will initiate inquiry".

Mehta said that International cricketers, hailing from Baroda have been given plots. To which the court orally said, "You may be anyone. Officials of corporation who enabled you to permit enter into property of corporation, we will initiate inquiry. We are only concerned with the fact that you occupied property of the corporation...And not a single penny towards...". The court further asked if the plot has been vacated, to which the respondent's counsel said that the plot had not been vacated till date.

The bench thereafter asked the appellant's counsel as to how much time was needed by the appellant to vacate.

Mehta at this stage said, "I will responsibly argue...After corporation passed resolution in my favour. I will immediately say why this amount was not paid".

The court at this orally said that it was not concerned with whether the appellant was liable to pay the amount or not.

It further said, "This was merely a proposal of standing committee, forwarded to general body which agreed, and it was sent to state govt. Till you pay allotment money and till plot is actually allotted to you and possession is transferred it is an immovable property, there are formalities which are to be completed. Our query is how could you enter into the plot till then? That fact takes you outside the court. Anybody who is in possession of public plot without completion of formalities, no indulgence can be granted to that person".

At this stage appellant's counsel sought time to seek instructions and said, "My instructions are that the payment was not made because I had give consented. Immediately state rejected and that order of 2014 according to me was communicated in 2024. Im only saying my explanation. That is how I remained in possession. There was a lull".

The court however orally said that it was not inclined to give more than two weeks adding, that the appellant was also liable to pay damages, for use and occupation of public plot. Mehta however argued that appellant was not "using the plot".

To this the court orally asked, "Can you say you are not in possession of plot?...Its not an answer. 'I have a plot I dont use it but I own it'. It is not an answer. You fenced a public plot. That itself is an offence. Encroachment on a public land. It is a criminal offence. Pay damages".

Mehta however said that, "Im facing all this since it was no taken to a logical end". To which the court orally said, "You are not an illiterate person. You are a patriot. An international cricketer. You are not expected to do this. Be ready for the damages for the use and occupation of public property, even if you kept it barren land you are required to pay damages...at the market rate".

At this stage Mehta said that he will come back with instructions on the exact position and submitted that he may be permitted to make certain submissions on the next date. The court further orally said that it will be proposing that the appellant pay damages, and said that tit was disclosing so that the appellant is ready on this.

The matter is listed on June 15.

Background

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.

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