Former cricketer and MP Yusuf Pathan withdraws his appeal challenging a single-judge order that called him an 'encroacher' on government land.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed as withdrawn an appeal by former cricketer and MP Yusuf Pathan against a single-judge order labeling him an encroacher on a Vadodara plot.
AI-generated summary
The dispute began in 2024 when the Gujarat government rejected Yusuf Pathan's request for a 978-square metre plot under a state policy for international cricketers.
The Gujarat High Court on Monday dismissed as withdrawn an appeal filed by former India cricketer and Lok Sabha MP Yusuf Pathan against a single-judge order that had described him as an “encroacher” on a piece of government land in Vadodara. Pathan’s lawyer, Shalin Mehta, sought permission to withdraw the plea before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray. The lawyer told the court that Pathan’s claim over the land was still being pursued under a state government policy. The division bench subsequently dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Pathan had challenged land allotment rejection
The 43-year-old had approached the High Court challenging a single-judge order that upheld the Gujarat government’s decision to reject his request for allotment of the 978-square metre plot owned by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC). Pathan had claimed the land under a state policy applicable to international cricketers. During an earlier hearing, Pathan had told the court that he was pursuing his claim under a state government scheme and was given four weeks to pursue the matter. The High Court had also warned that he could face higher payment of damages if he took longer to vacate the plot.
During Monday’s proceedings, Mehta said they were awaiting a response from the VMC but had not received one. “Because we are saying that there is a circular which allows international cricketers to be given a plot. I think I will withdraw because I haven’t heard anything from them (VMC). I have taken instructions from my client…if it is to happen, it will happen outside the court; otherwise it won’t happen," Mehta submitted.
With the appeal withdrawn, Pathan’s attempt to challenge the earlier court order through the division bench has come to an end.
VMC had asked Pathan to vacate plot
The dispute dates back to 2024, when the Gujarat government rejected Pathan’s request for allotment of the plot. Despite the rejection, he continued to occupy the land.
After Pathan was elected from the Baharampur Lok Sabha seat in West Bengal on a Trinamool Congress (TMC) ticket in 2024, the VMC issued him a notice asking him to vacate the land. Pathan refused and challenged the matter in court. The High Court had previously taken a strong view of his occupation of the plot. During a hearing on June 8, the court came down heavily on Pathan over the alleged “encroachment” and orally questioned how he could enter and occupy the land without completing the required formalities. The matter now moves outside the court as Pathan continues to pursue his claim under the state policy.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 78-year-old retired IFS officer, Jayaramaiah, accused in a multi-state fraud case. The court ruled that receiving illicit funds in one's account does not automatically prove criminal complicity.
The Supreme Court stated that poverty, inequality, illiteracy and discriminatory environments trigger delinquent behaviour in children, emphasizing that juveniles should not be treated as criminals but as victims of circumstance, in contrast to a ruling that contrasts with a previous bench's focus on technology and social media's impact on youth.
India's National Human Rights Commission has issued notices to the ministries of electronics and information technology and information and broadcasting as part of its inquiry into whether Meta's systems actively participate in the generation, selection, circulation, amplification or monetisation of child sexual abuse material on Instagram, questioning the platform's status as a passive intermediary under IT Rules, 2021.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Bar Council of India lacks authority to discipline or regulate law students, quashing its letters threatening to debar Nalsar University law graduates for opposing CJI Surya Kant's convocation invitation, affirming that only parent institutions can take disciplinary action against students.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) can require teacher education institutions to submit annual performance appraisal reports, emphasizing the council's role in ensuring quality education and overturning a high court order that had blocked the measure.
The Karnataka High Court ruled in favor of landowner Horakerappa, affirming that 40 years of unauthorized possession and incorrect revenue entries by a neighbor do not establish legal ownership. The court emphasized that title requires clear evidence beyond mere occupation.