The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that former cricketer and now-TMC Member of Parliament 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 favor [Yusuf Pathan v State of Gujarat and anr].
A Bench of Justice Mauna M Bhatt made the observation while dismissing Pathan's petition against the State government's 2024 decision to reject the proposal to allot the plot to Pathan.
The judge 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.
The Court added 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.
It recounted that the Supreme Court has also laid down that celebrities serve as social role models and their accountability is greater than ordinary people, not lesser.
"Celebrities by virtue of their fame and public presence wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values 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. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner shall not be permitted to remain in the occupation of the plot in question which he has encroached," the August 21 ruling said.
The dispute dates back to 2012, when Pathan sought to acquire a 978 square metre plot that was next to his bungalow in Vadodara, citing security concerns considering his celebrity status as an international cricketer.
He made an application before the municipal authorities seeking a lease over the said plot for 99 years. The Commissioner of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) eventually referred the matter to the State government, since there was a proposal made to allot the plot to Pathan without holding any public auction.
While the matter was pending before the State government, Pathan allegedly took possession of the plot by putting up a boundary wall.
In June 2024, however, the State government rejected the proposal to lease the plot in Pathan's favour and directed the VMC to take steps to clear any encroachment put up on the plot in question.
This was challenged by Pathan before the High Court.
The Court, however, dismissed his plea. It concluded that Pathan had no right to take possession of the land, when there was no communication on record to indicate that he had been given a right to do so.
"The petitioner (Pathan) had no right to occupy the plot in question ... the submission of the Corporation that the petitioner has encroached the land in question, in the opinion of this Court is correct ... Without paying consideration or without any order of allotment in favour of petitioner, it would be improper on part of the petitioner to occupy the land in question and this action would amount to encroachment by creating a boundary wall," the Court said.
The Court added 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.
"This illegality in the opinion of this Court shall not be permitted to be perpetuated. Therefore, when the petitioner is found to be encroacher of the plot in question, strict action in accordance with law is expected from the respondent corporation," the Court ordered.
Senior Advocate Yatin Oza and Advocates Shyam M Shah and Jay S Shah appeared for Pathan.
Advocate Maulik Nanavati appeared for the VMC.
Additional Government Pleader Suman Motla appeared for the State.
[Read Order]