Yusuf Pathan Withdraws Gujarat HC Appeal Over Disputed Vadodara Land Plot

Vadodara: Former India cricketer and Lok Sabha MP Yusuf Pathan has withdrawn his Gujarat High Court appeal over a disputed 978-square-metre Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) plot, citing the civic body’s failure to respond to his request to pursue the matter under a policy for international sportspersons.

Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, appearing for Pathan, told the Division Bench on Monday that his client had instructed him to withdraw the appeal after the VMC failed to respond to their efforts.

Mehta said a Gujarat government circular provides for the allotment of plots to international cricketers. He told the court that the matter could now be pursued outside the court if the civic body was willing to consider it.

The Bench recorded Pathan’s decision and ordered that the case be “dismissed as withdrawn”.

The dispute concerns Final Plot No. 90 of Tandalja TP Scheme No. 22, a 978-square-metre municipal plot located next to the Pathan family’s residence.

Pathan had approached the VMC in March 2012 seeking the plot on a 99-year lease without an auction, citing security concerns arising from the public profile of himself and his brother, former India cricketer Irfan Pathan.

The VMC Standing Committee and General Board approved the proposal, and the plot was valued at Rs 57,270 per square metre, putting the premium at around Rs 5.6 crore. Pathan later expressed his willingness to pay the amount.

However, the proposed direct allotment required approval from the Gujarat government’s Urban Development Department as it involved bypassing the public auction process. The state government rejected the proposal in June 2014.

The VMC later alleged that Pathan had fenced and occupied the plot despite the allotment process not being completed. In June 2024, the civic body issued him a notice seeking removal of the alleged encroachment.

A single-judge Bench of the Gujarat High Court upheld the state government’s decision in August 2025, observing that prolonged possession of the land without payment did not create a legal right.

Pathan challenged the order before a Division Bench in February 2026.

DeshGujarat