The Gujarat High Court pulled up former cricketer and TMC MP Yusuf Pathan on Monday over his occupation of a Vadodara plot that was never formally allotted to him, warning that the land must be vacated or penalties would follow.

Court Demands Explanation

The Gujarat High Court on Monday sharply questioned former Indian cricketer and sitting Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan over his possession of a disputed municipal plot in Vadodara — land, the bench pointedly noted, that he was never legally allotted.

"If the land was never allotted, how did you take possession of it?" the division bench asked during the hearing, underlining that not a single rupee had been paid, no lease deed had been executed, and none of the required formalities had been completed.

The court went further — it asked Pathan to identify which official had handed over possession of the plot, indicating that an inquiry could be initiated against that person.

The Core of the Dispute

The case has its roots in a 2012 application filed by Pathan seeking a plot in Vadodara. The Standing Committee of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation approved a proposal to allot the land to him at market value. The General Body later endorsed the proposal, and it was forwarded to the Gujarat government for final approval.

The state government, however, rejected the proposal in 2014, citing the absence of a public auction process. Under its position, no allotment of public land could be made through a selective process without following prescribed norms.

Pathan challenged this rejection — along with a June 2024 VMC order directing removal of his possession — before the Gujarat High Court in 2024.

His Legal Argument

Pathan's counsel argued that the plot falls under municipal corporation jurisdiction and that state government approval was not required in the first place. The petition also invoked a 1999 state policy that allegedly made international cricketers eligible for land allotments, pointing out that both Yusuf and his brother Irfan Pathan had represented India at the highest level.

His legal team further contended that the allotment proposal had cleared both the Standing Committee and the General Body, and that Pathan had at all times expressed willingness to pay prevailing market value. The petition also cited security concerns, noting that the plot is situated near his residence.

Single Judge Had Already Dismissed His Plea

This is not the first time the matter has gone against Pathan. A single-judge bench had earlier dismissed his challenge, observing that he held no allotment letter and no legal order granting him possession.

The single judge had noted that despite the complete absence of any legal allotment, a boundary wall had been constructed around the property — an action the court described as an attempt to create pressure for eventual allotment. The judgment had been unambiguous: public land cannot change hands through a selective process.

Corporation Stands Firm

The Vadodara Municipal Corporation told the division bench that state government clearance was always mandatory given that the process bypassed public auction. It submitted that Pathan had been informed of this requirement and that the state's rejection had been duly communicated to him over the years.

The corporation's position was that no valid allotment had ever come into existence — the Standing Committee's resolution was a proposal, nothing more.

Court Warns of Penalties

The bench on Monday made its views plain: unauthorized occupation of public land amounts to an offence. It said the conduct was unexpected from an international cricketer, and stressed that even if the plot was lying unused, compensation and rent would still be payable for the period of occupation.

If the land is not voluntarily vacated, the court indicated it could direct authorities to reclaim possession and assess dues for the entire period it has remained under Pathan's control.

The next hearing in the matter is scheduled for June 15.