MP Yusuf Pathan withdraws Gujarat High Court appeal over Rs 20.5-crore civic body plot

He then informed the Bench that he took instructions from his client to withdraw the appeal. “…So it’s embarrassing for us also… I have taken instructions from my client. If it has to happen, it will happen outside the court; otherwise, it won’t happen,” Mehta submitted.

The court recorded the submission that the appellant instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal and ordered that the “case stands dismissed as withdrawn”.

The development comes days after the VMC General Board raised questions over the valuation of the disputed plot and other municipal land parcels, approved by the civic Standing Committee in mid-July and presented to the General Board for ratification. The resolution for valuation was subsequently withdrawn by Municipal Commissioner Arun Mahesh Babu for reconsideration after elected members questioned the move to proceed with valuation before addressing the issue of encroachments.

From allotment proposal to legal dispute

The dispute concerns Final Plot No. 90 of Tandalja TP Scheme No. 22, a 978-square-metre parcel situated adjacent to the Pathan family’s residence.

In March 2012, Pathan had approached the VMC seeking allotment of the open municipal plot, citing security concerns arising from the public profile of himself and his brother, former India cricketer Irfan Pathan. The proposal was for a 99-year lease without a public auction.

The VMC’s Standing Committee and General Board approved the proposal. The land was subsequently valued at Rs 57,270 per square metre, putting the premium at around Rs 5.6 crore. Pathan later communicated his willingness to pay the amount.

However, the proposed direct allotment required approval from the Gujarat government’s Urban Development Department as it sought to bypass the public auction process. The state government rejected the proposal in June 2014.

The VMC subsequently alleged that Pathan nevertheless fenced and occupied the plot. In June 2024, shortly after his election to the Lok Sabha from Baharampur in West Bengal, the civic body issued him a notice directing him to remove the alleged encroachment.

Pathan challenged the notice before the High Court. In August 2025, a single judge upheld the state government’s decision rejecting the proposed allotment. The court held that prolonged possession of the land without payment did not create a legal right.

Pathan subsequently filed an appeal against the order before a Division Bench in February this year. During hearings in June 2026, the Gujarat HC Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal questioned how Pathan had taken physical possession of public land without completion of the allotment formalities or payment. The court orally observed that occupation of public land without authority of law could not be treated as ordinary use and indicated that the period of such occupation would have to be considered while assessing damages.

Pathan’s counsel sought time to pursue relief under a 1999 Gujarat government policy concerning allotment of land to international sportspersons. The Bench granted time but cautioned that continued occupation could increase the financial liability.

VMC valuation and the auction question

While the appeal was pending, the VMC moved towards valuing the disputed plot for possible auction. The Standing Committee approved a rate of Rs 2.10 lakh per square metre, putting the estimated value of the land at nearly Rs 20.5 crore.

The proposed valuation triggered objections from citizen groups, who questioned whether the civic body should proceed with an auction while the plot remained under disputed occupation and the legal proceedings were pending.
Vishwamitri Bachao Samiti argued that the alleged encroachment should first be removed and physical possession recovered before the property was offered for public bidding. The group also calculated that, applying the VMC’s prescribed rate of Rs 15 per square metre per day for temporary use of open TP plots, charges for the alleged 14-year occupation could amount to around Rs 7.5 crore, excluding penal interest and penalties. The figure is the group’s calculation and is not an assessed municipal demand.

The General Board subsequently returned the valuation resolution to the Commissioner, raising the question of whether encroachments should be addressed before the valuation process proceeds.

VMC Municipal Commissioner Arun Mahesh Babu refused to comment on the issue.

Sources, however, said that until the VMC initiates any action on the ground the plot is “likely to remain in Pathan’s possession” as it has been since 2014.