Gujarat High Court Judgment on Yusuf Pathan Encroachment Case

In a very significant development, we see that none other than the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Yusuf MehmudKhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat & Anr in R/Special Civil Application No. 9027 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:GUJHC:50754 that was pronounced recently on 21.08.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold unequivocally that former cricketer and now a MP from TMC party – Yusuf Pathan had encroached on public property when he put up a boundary wall over a government-owned residential plot even before local authorities decided on whether it should be leased in his favour.

It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Mauna M Bhatt who authored this leading judgment also made it indubitably clear that being a celebrity and a Parliamentarian, Pathan owes more responsibilities to society and cannot be shown any leniency once found responsible for land encroachment. There can be just no denying or disputing it!

Dismissal of Petition

The Bench made the key observation while dismissing Yusuf Pathan’s petition against the State government’s 2024 decision to reject the proposal to allot the plot to him. The Bench also rejected Pathan’s submission that he is willing to pay the market value price to have it allotted in his favour on lease for 99 years. It was further maintained that neither Pathan’s long possession of the plot in question, nor his willingness to pay market price value to lease the property, would give him any rights over the said plot.

Key Judicial Observations

At the very outset, this judgment sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1:

“Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.”

The Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the petitioner’s version:

“This petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the notice/order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure E/1 page No.20) whereby, respondent No.2 – Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC)’s proposal to allot the plot in question in favour of the petitioner, on lease, for a period of 99 years, without holding any public auction has been rejected...”

In para 15, the Bench noted:

“Essentially, the challenge in this petition is against the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by Municipal Commissioner of VMC, wherein, the petitioner has been informed to remove encroachment from the plot in question. The order also refers to rejection of petitioner’s application by the State Government under order dated 09.06.2014...”

In para 16, the Bench further observed:

“If the documents annexed with the petition are perused, it is evident that originally the petitioner made an application requesting allotment of land of 978 sq.mtrs... After communication dated 30.05.2013 of the petitioner, no order of respondent – Corporation for allotting plot in question was passed.”

In para 17, the Bench stated:

“On the contrary, thereafter, a communication dated 09.06.2014 was received by the Municipal Commissioner of VMC, from the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had no right to occupy the plot in question...”

Most significantly, in para 18, the Bench emphasized:

“At this stage, this Court would like to consider the submission that petitioner since has represented the Country at international level and being an elected member of parliament owes certain added responsibilities and duties towards laws of this country... celebrities serve as social role models and their accountability is greater not lesser.”

In para 21, the Court noted:

“On the submission of imposing costs on the petitioner... despite having knowledge of petitioner’s possession over the plot in question, no action was initiated by the Corporation and therefore, the request of payment of cost is rejected.”

Finally, in para 22, the Court concluded:

“In view of foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.”

Conclusion

In essence, the bottom-line of this most commendable judgment is that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Mauna M Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad has made it absolutely clear that celebrities are not above law. Broadly speaking, we thus see that it was also made crystal clear that if celebrities like Yusuf Pathan violate law then they would have to face the consequences as granting leniency to such persons would send a wrong message to society! Absolutely right!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh