In a very significant development, we see that none other than the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Yusuf MehmudKhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat & Anr in R/Special Civil Application No. 9027 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:GUJHC:50754 that was pronounced recently on 21.08.2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold unequivocally that former cricketer and now a MP from TMC party – 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 favour. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Mauna M Bhatt who authored this leading judgment also made it indubitably clear 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. There can be just no denying or disputing it!

It must be mentioned that the Bench made the key observation while dismissing Yusuf Pathan’s petition against the State government’s 2024 decision to reject the proposal to allot the plot to him. What also must be taken note is that the Bench 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. What also must be noted in particular is that the Bench further maintained clearly 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. We thus see that the submissions of Yusuf Pathan failed to cut any ice with the Single Judge Bench of the Gujarat High Court.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth aptly in para 1 that, “Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the petitioner’s version stating that, “This petition is filed seeking to quash and set aside the notice/order dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure E/1 page No.20) whereby, respondent No.2 – Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC)’s proposal to allot the plot in question in favour of the petitioner, on lease, for a period of 99 years, without holding any public auction has been rejected. Under order dated 06.06.2024, directions were also issued to VMC to do the needful to remove encroachment from plot in question on urgent basis. Petitioner also prays to quash and set aside the order dated 09.06.2014 by the State Government at Annexure R/11 page 61. Vide communication dated 09.06.2014, the VMC was informed that its proposal to give plot in question, without public auction, to the petitioner on lease for 99 years has been rejected.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 15 that, “Considered the submissions, documents on record and decisions relied upon. Essentially, the challenge in this petition is against the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by Municipal Commissioner of VMC, wherein, the petitioner has been informed to remove encroachment from the plot in question. The order dated 06.06.2024 also refers to rejection of petitioner’s application by the State Government under order dated 09.06.2014 and accordingly, the order dated 09.06.2014 is also challenged in this petition. If the order dated 09.06.2014 is perused, it is evident that by the said order, the State Government has communicated to the petitioner that his request for allotment of land situated in T.P. Scheme No.22, Final Plot No.90 admeasuring 978 sq.mtrs, having ownership of Corporation, without putting the same to auction has been rejected.”

Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 16 that, “In the above context, if the documents annexed with the petition are perused, it is evident that originally the petitioner made an application requesting allotment of land of 978 sq.mtrs situated at T.P.No.22 Final Plot No.90. Upon an application, a decision was taken to ascertain market value and thereafter a proposal to allot the same to the petitioner without following auction procedure was considered by respondent Corporation. In response to the valuation sought, the price of plot in question was ascertained at Rs. 57,270/- per sq.mtrs. Accordingly, a resolution was passed by VMC in the Standing Committee on 30.03.2012 and the matter was referred to the General Body of VMC. In the General Body Meeting held on 08.06.2012, a decision was taken to refer the matter to Commissioner of Municipal Corporation because such powers are assigned to Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. Pursuant to which the Municipal Commissioner of VMC, referred the matter to State Government for its opinion. A communication dated 25.06.2012 was forwarded to the petitioner bringing to his notice these facts. If a close reading of the said communication dated 25.06.2012 is done, it refers to the earlier resolutions of the Corporation dated 30.03.2012 and 08.06.2012 for the plot and its valuation per sq.mtrs. The communication further states that the allotment is proposed to be given without putting the plot in question to auction, hence a sanction is sought from the State Government and if the sanction is accorded, further procedure will be initiated. This communication dated 25.06.2012, was in response to the petitioner’s letter dated 03.03.2012. Thereafter, efforts were made to get response from the State authorities on the proposal sent by Municipal Commissioner. After communication dated 25.06.2012, one more letter dated 30.05.2013 was addressed by the petitioner stating that he is awaiting response from the Corporation and ready to pay the price fixed as per the valuation done and once a response is received, he shall do the needful to get the possession of Plot No.90. After communication dated 30.05.2013 of the petitioner, no order of respondent – Corporation for allotting plot in question was passed.”

Most forthrightly, it is worth paying attention that the Bench then points out in para 17 observing that, “On the contrary, thereafter, a communication dated 09.06.2014 was received by the Municipal Commissioner of VMC, from the State Government rejecting the application of the petitioner. Therefore, 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. This Court says so also because 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. This aspect is more evident from the communication of the petitioner dated 30.05.2013 which refers to the communication of Corporation where he has been informed that the matter is sent to the State Government for its sanction. More so, under communication dated 30.05.2013, the petitioner himself has asked for payment and also sought further instructions for having possession. Therefore, unless and until the petitioner has been ordered to make payment or granted allotment, he cannot be stated to be the owner of plot in question and therefore, also the allegation of encroachment, in the opinion of this Court is correct. Further, there is no denial by the petitioner regarding his possession of the plot in question. For that matter, long possession or willingness to pay at this stage, will not give any right over the land in question to the petitioner. Thus, 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 submission at this stage that the petitioner may be treated as bonafide purchaser as he is ready to purchase the plot in question at the market rate applicable as on date is not acceptable because in the opinion of this Court it would amount to regularizing encroachment in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Not a single communication the petitioner is able to place on record justifying his efforts to make payment. In other words, the petitioner simply enjoyed the plot in question without there being any right over it.”

Most significantly and so also most remarkably, the Bench then encapsulates in para 18 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “At this stage, this Court would like to consider the submission that petitioner since has represented the Country at international level and being an elected member of parliament owes certain added responsibilities and duties towards laws of this country. In this context, this Court would like to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.3528 of 2025 wherein it is held that celebrities serve as social role models and their accountability is greater not lesser. The 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.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 21 noting that, “On the submission of imposing costs on the petitioner, as observed earlier the petitioner owes more responsibilities towards the Society, however, it is noticed that the State Government communicated about rejection of proposal of allotment of plot in question to the Commissioner of Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 09.06.2014 and despite having knowledge of petitioner’s possession over the plot in question, no action was initiated by the Corporation and therefore, the request of payment of cost is rejected.”

Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 22 that, “In view of foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.”

In essence, the bottom-line of this most commendable judgment is that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mrs Justice Mauna M Bhatt of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad has made it absolutely clear that celebrities are not above law. Broadly speaking, we thus see that it was also made crystal clear that if celebrities like Yusuf Pathan violate law then they would have to face the consequences as granting leniency to such persons would send a wrong message to society! Absolutely right!