Gujarat High Court: In a petition to quash an order dated 6-6-2024 (‘impugned order’), wherein Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s (‘VMC’) proposal to allot a plot of land to the petitioner, Yusuf Pathan, on lease for a period of 99 years without holding any public auction had been rejected, the Single Judge Bench of Mauna M. Bhatt, J, held that Yusuf Khan being a former international cricketer and a Member of Parliament had a higher responsibility to uphold the law. The Court thus, held him liable for encroaching upon a plot of land by building a boundary wall over it even when no order of allotment had been passed in his favour.
Background
The petitioner had made an application before Respondent 2, VMC requesting allotment of a plot of land adjacent to his house citing security reasons for himself and his family. Upon receipt of the application, the VMC had decided to ascertain the market value of the plot and a proposal to allot the plot of land without following the auction procedure was considered. The matter was referred to the General Body of VMC, which further referred the matter the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Commissioner of VMC referred the matter to the State government for opinion and the same was informed to the petitioner vide communication dated 25-6-2012. The communication had also stated that the allotment is proposed to be given without putting the plot in question to auction, hence a sanction was sought from the State government and if the sanction was accorded, further procedure would be initiated.
While awaiting response from the State authorities, the petitioner had addressed another letter to the VMC dated 30-5-2013, stating that he was ready to pay the price fixed by the VMC and once confirmation is received, he’d do the needful to get possession of the flat.
By a letter dated 9-6-2014, State government had communicated to the VMC that the proposal of the petitioner had been rejected. However, the petitioner had constructed a boundary wall on the plot of land and by order dated 6-6-2024, the State government had directed removal of the boundary wall as well as ordered the petitioner to vacate the premises.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner had no right to occupy the plot in question since neither any order of allotment had been passed in his favour, nor had he paid any consideration with respect to the same. The Court further noted that the petitioner had been duly informed that the application had been sent to the State authorities for sanction and the petitioner himself had asked for instructions to make payment and take possession of the plot.
Thus, the Court opined that until the petitioner had been ordered to make payment or had been granted allotment, he could not be stated to be the owner of the plot in question and the boundary wall illegally constructed on the premises amounted to encroachment.
The Court also rejected the contention that the petitioner may be treated as a bonafide purchaser as he’s ready to purchase the plot at the market rate since doing so would amount to regularizing encroachment in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court further considered the submission that the petitioner being an international cricket icon and an elected member of the Parliament owed certain added responsibilities to the country and stated that the celebrities indeed have significant influence over public behavior and granting leniency to them would send the wrong message to society.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner shall not be permitted to remain in occupation of the plot in question that he had encroached upon by building a boundary wall on it.
[Yusuf Mehmudkhan Pathan v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine Guj 3992, decided on 21-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate, Shyam M. Shah, Jay S. Shah, Advocates
For the Respondent: Suman Motla, Maulik Nanavati, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
To,
Hon’ble Gujarat HC
Yusuf Pathan is not a celebrity anymore. If this would be Virat Kohli or Sachin Tendulkar then it would be intresting to see what might be the courts stand then. Salman Khan goes unpunished shows that how much court respects the Celebrity status and ofcourse money power.