Ahmedabad/Vadodara: The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan, holding that he has been in “encroachment” of a 978 square metre plot belonging to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC). The court directed that no special treatment could be extended to celebrities and that the law must be applied strictly.

Background of the Case

In 2012, Pathan applied to purchase the VMC plot adjacent to his residence. The civic body passed a resolution valuing the land at ₹57,270 per sq. m and proposed selling it to him without auction. However, in 2014, the Gujarat state government rejected the proposal, ruling out a direct sale without public bidding. Despite this rejection, Pathan continued to retain possession of the plot for years.

Fresh Dispute After Pathan’s Election

The issue resurfaced in June 2024, after Pathan was elected as an MP from Baharampur constituency in West Bengal. Following complaints, VMC councillors raised objections to his continued possession. The VMC issued a fresh notice asking him to vacate, which Pathan challenged before the High Court.

Pathan’s Arguments

Pathan argued that he was willing to pay the market price for the land and had submitted his plea in good faith. He also contended that as an international cricketer and public figure, he had not acted improperly. He sought regularisation of his possession instead of eviction.

Court’s Observations

The High Court firmly rejected Pathan’s submissions, holding that his continued occupation was unlawful. The court stated that celebrities, due to their fame and influence, must set an example in respecting the law.

“The petitioner shall not be permitted to remain in the occupation of the plot in question, which he has encroached upon,” the order read. The bench also noted that granting leniency to public figures could undermine public trust in the judiciary.

Outcome

The HC refused to accept Pathan’s argument that he had attempted to regularise his possession, calling it an act of encroachment “by creating a boundary wall.” It further clarified that any allotment without auction would have been improper.

The VMC’s notice has thus been upheld, and the corporation is now free to take back possession of the disputed land.