The Gujarat High Court questioned former cricketer and TMC MP Yusuf Pathan’s occupation of a government plot in Vadodara despite refusal of allotment approval. The Court indicated he could face liability for unauthorized possession and compensation for use of public land.
The Gujarat High Court came down heavily on former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament Yusuf Pathan over his occupation of a government-owned plot in Vadodara, raising serious concerns about how he came to possess public land despite the State government refusing to approve its allotment.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray expressed strong disapproval of the circumstances under which Pathan occupied the land and indicated that he may be required to compensate the authorities for unauthorized use and occupation of the property. The matter has now been listed for further hearing on June 15.
Pathan, a native of Vadodara and currently the Lok Sabha MP from the Baharampur constituency in West Bengal, has challenged an earlier order of a single judge of the High Court that described him as an “encroacher” on government land.
ALSO READ: TMC MP Yusuf Pathan Challenges VMC’s Encroachment Notice in Gujarat High Court
During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned how Pathan could have taken possession of the plot when the process for allotment had never been completed and the State government had ultimately rejected the proposal.
Addressing senior advocate Shalin Mehta, who appeared for Pathan, Chief Justice Agarwal remarked:
“This was only a proposal for allotment which had been sent to the state government, which refused sanction. Just answer how you could occupy this plot? This is sufficient for us to reject. No one can do this.”
The Bench further sought an explanation as to how Pathan managed to occupy the land without paying any allotment charges and in the absence of any legally valid allotment order in his favour. The judges observed that merely because a proposal had been initiated by municipal authorities did not confer any right upon an individual to enter into possession of public property before all statutory requirements were fulfilled.
The Court orally observed that Pathan should be prepared to pay damages for the period during which he occupied the government land without authorization. The judges also inquired whether the plot had already been vacated and, if not, how much time would be required for handing over possession.
The Bench cautioned that costs could be imposed if the occupation continued despite the absence of a valid allotment. According to the Court, the facts on record indicated that Pathan entered into possession of the plot before the allotment process had reached its legal conclusion. This, the judges suggested, placed him in a difficult position while seeking equitable relief from the Court.
Highlighting the seriousness of the issue, the Bench observed:
“How could you take possession of the plot? Because that fact takes you outside of the court. Because anybody who is in possession of a public plot without completion of formality, no indulgence can be granted to such a person.”
Background of the Dispute:
The controversy revolves around a government-owned plot measuring approximately 978 square metres located adjacent to Pathan’s residence in Vadodara.
The proposal for allotment originated within the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC). The corporation’s Standing Committee reportedly approved a proposal recommending that the land be allotted to Pathan. The proposal was subsequently placed before the General Body of the municipal corporation and later forwarded to the State government for approval, as required under law.
However, the State government declined to sanction the proposed allotment. Despite the absence of final approval, allegations emerged that Pathan had already taken possession of the land.
The High Court noted that the proposal remained merely a recommendation and never matured into a legally enforceable allotment because the State government refused to grant the necessary approval. Consequently, according to the Court, Pathan could not claim any legal entitlement to continue occupying the property.
The present appeal arises from proceedings initiated after the State government rejected the municipal corporation’s proposal to allot the land to Pathan without conducting a public auction.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Slams Centre Over Delay in Allotting Govt House to Arvind Kejriwal
Following the government’s decision, a notice was issued rejecting the proposed allotment. Pathan challenged this action before the High Court.
In September 2025, the High Court dismissed his petition and upheld the State government’s decision. The single judge, while rejecting the challenge, characterized Pathan’s occupation of the plot as unauthorized and referred to him as an “encroacher” on public land. Aggrieved by that decision, Pathan filed the present appeal before the Division Bench.
The observations made by the Division Bench indicate a strong judicial concern regarding unauthorized occupation of public land and the need to ensure that government property is dealt with strictly in accordance with legal procedures.
The Court highlighted that possession of public property cannot be justified merely on the basis of an incomplete allotment proposal, particularly when the competent authority has expressly refused approval. The Bench’s remarks suggest that any individual occupying public land without completion of the requisite legal formalities may find it difficult to seek discretionary relief from the courts.
With the matter now scheduled for hearing on June 15, the Court is expected to further examine the circumstances surrounding Pathan’s possession of the plot and the question of damages for unauthorized occupation.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE