Celebrity Status Implies Greater Duty To Obey Law; Encroachment On Public Land Cannot Be Regularized: Gujarat High Court - 2025-09-13

Gujarat High Court Dismisses Yusuf Pathan's Plea for Land, Brands His Possession an 'Encroachment'

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a petition filed by former cricketer and Member of Parliament Yusuf Pathan, upholding the Vadodara Municipal Corporation's (VMC) decision to reject his proposal for a residential plot and directing the removal of his "encroachment" from the land. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt emphasized that celebrities and public figures have a "greater" accountability to be law-abiding citizens and that illegal occupation of public land cannot be regularized by the court.

Case Background

The case revolves around a 978 sq. mtr. residential plot in Vadodara, adjacent to Mr. Pathan's bungalow. In 2012, Pathan applied to the VMC for the allotment of this plot on a 99-year lease, citing security concerns for himself and his family. The VMC's Standing Committee and General Body passed resolutions to proceed with the allotment without a public auction, subject to sanction from the State Government, as this was a deviation from standard procedure.

The proposal was sent to the State of Gujarat for approval. However, in June 2014, the State Government rejected the proposal. Despite the rejection, Mr. Pathan took possession of the plot and constructed a boundary wall. A decade later, on June 6, 2024, the VMC issued a notice to Pathan, ordering him to remove the encroachment. This notice, along with the original 2014 rejection by the State, was challenged by Pathan in the present petition.

Petitioner's Arguments

Senior Advocate Yatin Oza, representing Yusuf Pathan, argued that: - The VMC, as an autonomous body under the 74th Constitutional Amendment, did not require the State Government's sanction for land disposal under Section 79 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation (GPMC) Act, 1949. - The VMC’s initial decision to seek state sanction was erroneous, and therefore the subsequent rejection by the state was inconsequential. - Mr. Pathan, being a renowned international cricketer and a sitting MP, was willing to pay the current market value for the plot.

Corporation's Counter-Arguments

Advocate Maulik Nanavati, for the VMC, contended that: - No citizen has a fundamental right to be allotted government land. - The reference to the State was not under Section 79 but was a conscious decision by the VMC because it was deviating from the mandatory public auction process. - Mr. Pathan was fully aware that the allotment was conditional on state approval and had even communicated his willingness to await the decision. - By occupying the plot and building a wall without any allotment order or payment, Mr. Pathan had illegally encroached upon public property. - As a public figure, Mr. Pathan is expected to be a law-abiding citizen, and his actions set a wrong precedent.

Court's Judgment and Reasoning

The High Court decisively sided with the respondents, rejecting all of the petitioner's arguments. Justice Bhatt concluded that Pathan’s occupation of the land was a clear case of encroachment.

"The petitioner had no right to occupy the plot in question which is why the submission of the Corporation that the petitioner has encroached the land in question, in the opinion of this Court is correct," the judgment stated.

The court highlighted a 2013 communication from Pathan himself, where he acknowledged waiting for instructions to take possession, proving he had no legal right to it at the time. The court held that long possession or a willingness to pay the current market price does not create any right over encroached land and that regularizing such an act would be improper.

Citing a Supreme Court precedent, Justice Bhatt remarked on the higher responsibility of public figures:

“Celebrities serve as social role models and their accountability is greater not lesser... granting leniency to such persons despite their non-abeyance of law gives wrong message to the society and undermines public confidence in the judicial system.”

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, clarifying that the VMC’s reference to the State was a procedural safeguard for bypassing a public auction, not an issue of jurisdiction under Section 79 of the GPMC Act.

Final Decision

The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the VMC to take strict action in accordance with the law to remove the encroachment. However, the court declined to impose costs on the petitioner, noting the VMC's own inaction for a decade after the state's rejection in 2014.