Once feared for his explosive batting, former international cricketer and sitting MP Yusuf Pathan is now caught in an innings of an entirely different kind — one where the questions, not the runs, keep piling up. A dispute over the alleged illegal occupation of government land in Vadodara, Gujarat, has reached the Gujarat High Court, and the bench's stance is making things steadily harder for him. A two-judge bench has made it clear that name and influence will not buy anyone the right to sit on public property.
A Stern Warning: Delay Will Cost You
During the hearing, the division bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in sharp terms that the land has been under illegal occupation since 2014. The bench bluntly warned that the more time sought from the court, the heavier the fine that will have to be paid — effectively shutting the door on any attempt to drag the matter out.
Defence Leans on a 'Policy'
The counsel appearing for Yusuf Pathan asked the court for four more weeks. The argument is that he wishes to place before the court the government policy relating to the allotment of state land to international cricketers. In other words, the entire defence strategy is being built around this policy.
The 978 Sq Metre Plot and the 2014 Rejection
The whole controversy centres on a prime 978 sq metre plot in Vadodara's Tandalja area. Pathan had sought this land for his residential use. The Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) passed a proposal to grant it at market value and forwarded it to the state government. However, in 2014 the state government rejected the proposal, holding that land could not be handed over in this manner without a public auction.
Proposal Rejected, Yet a Boundary Wall and Cattle Shed Came Up
What stands out is that despite the rejection, a boundary wall was raised on the plot and a shed for cattle was built, allegedly keeping the occupation going. The matter flared up in June 2024 when the VMC issued a notice to vacate the land immediately. It was this very notice that Pathan challenged before the High Court.
The Court's Pointed Question: Who Handed Over Possession?
In the previous hearing, the court struck at the very root of the case. It asked how possession of the land was obtained at all when the allotment itself never happened. The bench clearly said the name of the officer who handed over possession must be revealed — and that the court would order an inquiry against that officer as well. The question exposed not just Pathan but the entire machinery that allowed this occupation to continue for years.
'You Are Not Illiterate' — Rent and Damages Must Be Paid
The court also commented sharply on Pathan's standing as an international cricketer. The bench remarked that he is not an illiterate person and that such conduct was hardly expected from a cricketer of his stature. It further made clear that since the land is in his possession, even if he is not using it, he will have to pay rent and damages for it.
