A division bench led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, with Justice D N Ray, heard Pathan’s appeal against an August 2025 single-judge order that had held him to be an encroacher on the Vadodara Municipal Corporation-owned land adjacent to his family bungalow in Tandalja. The court made it clear that time granted to pursue a policy-based claim would not erase liability for the years during which the plot remained in his possession without a completed allotment or payment.
Pathan’s counsel Shalin Mehta sought two to three weeks, saying the MP was pursuing his claim under a 1999 state policy that allowed allotment of plots to international cricketers on certain conditions. The bench allowed a four-week window but cautioned that occupation from 2014 to 2026 would have financial consequences even if a decision later favoured him under the policy. The court’s warning effectively means any continued delay may add to the damages payable for use of the land.
The dispute centres on Final Plot No 90 in Town Planning Scheme No 22, measuring 978 square metres, near the Pathan family residence in Vadodara. Pathan had sought allotment of the land in 2012, citing residential and security-related grounds. The municipal standing committee and general board considered the proposal, and the matter was forwarded for government approval because the proposed lease was for 99 years without a public auction.
The Urban Development Department rejected the proposal on June 9, 2014. Despite that rejection, a boundary wall was later constructed around the plot, and the land remained in Pathan’s possession. The court has repeatedly questioned how possession could be taken before the completion of formal allotment procedures and without payment of the consideration amount.
The matter resurfaced after Pathan won the Baharampur Lok Sabha seat in West Bengal on a Trinamool Congress ticket in June 2024. Two days after the election results, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation issued a notice directing him to clear the alleged encroachment. Pathan challenged the notice and the government’s rejection order before the High Court.
Justice Mauna M Bhatt, in the single-judge ruling delivered on August 21, 2025, rejected Pathan’s petition and held that long possession or willingness to pay at a later stage did not create any legal right over public land. The order said there was no allotment in his favour, no payment made, and no valid basis for treating continued possession as lawful.
The single-judge ruling also observed that public figures carry a higher responsibility to comply with the law, saying leniency to celebrities despite non-observance of legal requirements would send a wrong message and undermine confidence in the justice system. The court expected the civic body to proceed in accordance with law to remove the encroachment.
Pathan’s appeal now turns on whether the 1999 policy for sportspersons can give him a fresh route to regularise his claim. His counsel has argued that other cricketers had received land under the policy and that Pathan fulfilled the relevant conditions. The bench, however, indicated that any such claim would still have to account for the absence of a favourable decision during the period of occupation.
The Vadodara Municipal Corporation’s position has been that the land belongs to the civic body and could not be handed over without compliance with statutory requirements. Municipal records show that the 2012 process did not result in a final allotment, and the 2014 rejection closed the earlier proposal. Officials had earlier said the corporation would be entitled to repossess the plot in line with the High Court’s findings.
