The Gujarat High Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn an appeal filed by former international cricketer and Lok Sabha MP Yusuf Pathan, who had challenged a previous judicial order designating him an encroacher on municipal land in Vadodara.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray permitted the withdrawal after Pathan’s legal representative informed the court that the lawmaker elected to pursue his land claim directly through administrative avenues rather than continuing litigation.
Resolution Sought Through Administrative Channels
Senior advocate Shalin Mehta, appearing for the 43-year-old Trinamool Congress parliamentarian, submitted that Pathan had applied to the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) under a state policy circular allowing land allotments to international cricketers. Mehta told the bench that because the civic body had not responded to the representation, his client instructed him to withdraw the petition to explore a resolution outside the courtroom.
The withdrawal brings an end to Pathan’s appeal against an August ruling by a single-judge bench, which had affirmed the Gujarat government’s decision to reject his claim for the 978-square-metre plot owned by the VMC.
Chronology of the Land Possession Dispute
The conflict began after state authorities rejected Pathan’s application for the municipal parcel in 2024. Despite the refusal, the former cricketer retained possession of the site. Following his election to the Lok Sabha from West Bengal’s Baharampur constituency later that year, the VMC served him an eviction notice directing him to vacate the land. Pathan declined to surrender possession and challenged the directive before the High Court.
During proceedings on June 8, the court reprimanded Pathan for unauthorized occupation, questioning how he had taken control of the plot without completing formal statutory requirements. The bench had earlier granted him a four-week extension to pursue his administrative application under the state scheme, while cautioning that continued delay in vacating the property would incur higher damage assessments.
