Gujarat High Court Raps Yusuf Pathan for Encroachment: “Fame Doesn’t Grant Immunity”

Vadodara, September 16, 2025 — Former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan has received a major setback from the Gujarat High Court, which has ruled that he has illegally encroached on a plot of land owned by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC).

Justice Mauna Bhatt, while rejecting Pathan’s petition, stated firmly that his readiness to pay the current market price for the land does not legalise illegal possession, and directed the VMC to remove the encroachment.

“You are an encroacher. Readiness to pay now cannot legalise illegal possession.Fame or public position does not grant immunity,” the court remarked

Background of the case

• In 2012, Pathan requested that the plot adjacent to his bungalow be allotted to him citing security concerns. The VMC valued the plot at ₹57,270 per sq metre and proposed to allot it without auction, but the state government rejected the proposal in 2014.

• Despite this, Pathan constructed a boundary wall and occupied the land. In June 2024, the VMC issued a demolition notice. Pathan challenged this notice in the Gujarat High Court. High Court’s observations and verdict

• Justice Mauna Bhatt dismissed the petition, holding that Pathan’s willingness to pay now does not cure the illegality of past encroachment.

• The court stressed that celebrity status or public office cannot place anyone above the law and granting special treatment would send a wrong message to society. The court also said long possession does not create ownership rights unless there is formal allotment and payment. Next steps

• The VMC has been directed to remove the encroachment on Plot No. 90, Survey Number 22, measuring about 978 sq metres. The court did not impose a penalty on Pathan, as the VMC had delayed action despite being aware of the encroachment.

Legal significance

This verdict reinforces important legal principles:

1. Encroachment is illegal, regardless of the person’s fame or status.

2. Simply offering to pay later does not legalise unlawful occupation.

3. Public property cannot be allotted without due legal procedure, which includes formal approval, valuation, and payment.

4. The judiciary emphasized equal application of the law to protect public trust.