Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has granted former India cricketer MP Yusuf Pathan four weeks to pursue his claim for allotment of a Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) plot under a state policy for international cricketers while cautioning that any delay could increase the damages payable for his continued occupation of the land.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray made the observation after senior advocate Shalin Mehta, appearing for Pathan, sought time to pursue relief under a 1999 Gujarat government policy. Mehta told the court that Pathan was entitled to the benefit under the policy and that similar relief had been granted to other cricketers.

The bench orally observed that the longer Pathan continued to occupy the plot without legal authority, the higher the damages could be. The court also indicated that even if he eventually secured relief under the policy, compensation for the period of occupation would still have to be assessed.

The judges further noted that occupation of public land without legal sanction cannot be treated as ordinary use and that damages for such occupation may have to be punitive in nature.

During an earlier hearing on June 8, the court had questioned how Pathan came to occupy the land despite the allotment process not being completed. It had observed that he had remained in possession of the plot since 2014 without making any payment and indicated that damages could be calculated at current market rates.

The case stems from Pathan’s challenge to an August 2025 single-judge order that upheld the Gujarat government’s decision to reject his request for allotment of a 978-square-metre plot in Vadodara’s Tandalja area on a 99-year lease.

Pathan had applied for the land in 2012 under a state policy for international sportspersons. Although the proposal received approval from the VMC Standing Committee and General Board, it was rejected by the Urban Development Department in 2014.

Later, in 2024, the VMC issued a notice alleging encroachment on the plot. The civic body has claimed that Pathan fenced the land and continued to occupy it without paying the required charges. The disputed plot is located adjacent to the Pathan family’s residence in Tandalja. DeshGujarat