Vadodara Civic Panel Approves Plot Transfer as a Special Case

The Standing Committee of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) on October 23 approved a proposal to allot a 978-square-metre plot to former Indian cricketer and Trinamool Congress MP Yusuf Pathan. The land is located next to his bungalow and was the subject of an encroachment notice issued to him two years ago.

The proposal was approved unanimously by the committee, whose 12 members belong to the BJP. It will now be placed before the VMC General Board for final approval.

Under the proposal, 500 square metres of land would be transferred to Pathan as a “gift”, while the remaining 478 square metres would be offered at a concessional rate based on the valuation determined by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA). The Gujarat government has stated that the allotment is an exceptional case and cannot be treated as a precedent.

However, the decision has raised questions about the legal authority to transfer public land without following the usual disposal procedures.

The Urban/Area Development Authorities (Disposal of Land and Other Properties) Regulations, 2002, generally provide for disposal through sale, lease or development rights. They do not explicitly include gifting public land to individuals. Regulation 13 provides for special allotments to specified institutions and organisations for projects serving the public interest.

Citizens’ Group Questions Legality and Equal Treatment

The proposed allotment has been challenged by the citizens’ action group Vishwamitri Bachao Samiti. The group has questioned why the proposal was revived after the Gujarat government rejected Pathan’s original application in 2014. The request had first been submitted in 2012.

The Samiti has raised concerns regarding the law of limitation, constitutional equality and the alleged encroachment on the plot. It argues that granting such a concession to one sportsperson could result in unequal treatment of other international cricketers and athletes.

The group has also questioned the assurance that the state government’s Revenue Department would provide the municipal corporation with alternative land of equivalent value, arguing that the replacement should be secured before the transfer.

The case highlights broader concerns about transparency, public land management and the legal limits of government discretion. The proposed allotment will require further consideration by the civic authorities amid questions over its legal basis and fairness.