A senior municipal corporation official stated that the civic body had received the state government's approval and that the proposal would soon be presented before the standing committee and the general board for final clearance, though the full details of the transaction are still being finalized.
Under the terms of the official state decision, 500 square metres of the land will be granted free of cost for residential use, while the remaining 478 square metres will be provided at 55 percent of its assessed market value. The entire land parcel carries an estimated market valuation of approximately ₹20.50 crore.
State records indicate that the government resolution was issued on August 13 and reached the municipal corporation on August 29. Shortly afterward, Pathan formally withdrew his legal appeal contesting a previous Gujarat High Court order that had rejected his ownership claims over the property.
Pathan had initially sought a 99-year lease for the plot located adjacent to his residence in the Tandalja area back in 2012, citing personal security considerations. While the municipal corporation previously approved a proposal to allot the land at a specific per-square-metre rate, the state government blocked the move in June 2014 on the grounds that the property had not been subjected to a public auction.
Despite the rejection, Pathan maintained possession of the land and constructed a boundary wall around it. This led the municipal corporation to issue an encroachment removal notice in June 2024, prompting Pathan to challenge the directive in the high court.
The high court subsequently dismissed his petition, ruling that he held no lawful claim to the property since no final allotment had ever been completed and no payment had been rendered. Following further legal maneuvers and a division bench directive allowing him to pursue relief under the state's international sportspersons policy, Pathan chose to withdraw his pending appeal as the state government's new allotment process moved forward.
As part of the government resolution, the revenue department has been instructed to transfer municipal land of equivalent value to compensate for the property transaction, with a specific stipulation that the unique ruling cannot be used as a legal precedent in future cases.