The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed actor Saif Ali Khan to approach the appellate authority regarding the central government’s declaration of the Pataudi family’s historical properties in Bhopal as “enemy property.” This decision follows a long-running legal dispute over the ownership of these assets, which are valued at approximately Rs 15,000 crore.
The properties in question include the Flag Staff House, where Saif spent his childhood – Dar-Us-Salam, the Bungalow of Habibi, Ahmedabad Palace, and the Kohefiza Property, all located in Bhopal. The central government’s move to declare these assets as “enemy property” stems from a complex historical narrative dating back to the 1947 Partition of India and the migration of the Pataudi family’s ancestors, reports The Indian Express.
The legal challenge was initiated by Saif Ali Khan’s mother, the acclaimed actress Sharmila Tagore (Pataudi), along with other family members. They contested the Custodian of Enemy Property for India’s February 24, 2015, order that classified the Pataudi family’s Bhopal properties as “enemy property.”
The Enemy Property Act was enacted by Parliament following the 1965 India-Pakistan war to manage properties left behind in India by individuals who migrated to Pakistan.
The Pataudi Family’s connection to the disputed properties
The origins of this dispute can be traced to the 1947 Partition, when the princely state of Bhopal was ruled by Nawab Hamidullah Khan. His eldest daughter, Abida Sultan, migrated to Pakistan in 1950, a key event that sparked the government’s claim to the family’s properties as “enemy property.”
The second daughter, Sajida Sultan, remained in India and married Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi, a renowned cricketer. Their son, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, also known as “Tiger Pataudi,” became a prominent figure in Indian cricket. Following Tiger Pataudi’s passing, his son, Saif Ali Khan, inherited a share of the Bhopal properties. However, Abida Sultan’s migration to Pakistan has been cited as the basis for the government’s classification of these assets as “enemy property.”
The government’s declaration and legal challenges
In 2014, the Custodian of Enemy Property Department declared the Pataudi family’s properties in Bhopal as enemy assets. Saif Ali Khan contested this notice, asserting his legal rights to the properties. A further complication arose in 2016 when the Indian government issued an Ordinance explicitly stating that heirs would not have rights to such properties.
In response to the ongoing legal challenge, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after hearing the case since 2015, advised Saif Ali Khan to approach the newly established appellate authority for further adjudication. This came after the government informed the court on December 13, 2024, that an appellate authority had been formed to resolve disputes related to enemy properties.
What Is “Enemy Property”?
“Enemy property” refers to assets that were left behind by individuals or entities who migrated to enemy nations—such as Pakistan and China—during times of conflict. Following the wars with Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, and the Sino-Indian War in 1962, India assumed control over the properties of those who chose to adopt the nationality of these countries.
Under the Defence of India Rules, established in 1962, these properties were handed over to the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. The Custodian’s role is to manage and retain control of such assets on behalf of the Indian government.
Legal heirs and inheritance of enemy property
The legal framework surrounding enemy properties has been contentious. The Enemy Property Act, 1968, stipulated that such properties would remain permanently under the control of the Custodian, with no provision for inheritance or transfer. The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017, further strengthened this provision, extending the definition of “enemy subjects” and “enemy firms” to include legal heirs, regardless of nationality.
This means that even if the legal heirs are Indian citizens, they are not entitled to inherit enemy properties. The law also ensures that these assets remain under the Custodian’s control, even if the enemy subject has passed away or ceased to exist.
Court rulings and government response
Notable cases involving enemy property have sparked widespread debate. One of the most prominent was the case of the Raja of Mahmudabad, whose properties in Uttar Pradesh were declared enemy assets after he migrated to Pakistan in 1957. However, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of his son, recognising his right to inherit the properties.
This judgment set off a wave of litigation, with many individuals trying to claim enemy properties through various legal documents. In response, the Indian government passed the Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance in 2016, which nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling and clarified that enemy properties would remain with the Custodian, regardless of inheritance claims.
The fate of enemy properties in India
Once enemy properties are taken over by the Custodian, their fate is determined by a set of guidelines. The Enemy Property Disposal Committee, consisting of senior government officials, evaluates these assets and decides whether they should be sold, transferred, or retained. If the properties are vacant, they may be auctioned, while occupied properties could be offered to existing tenants at a price determined by the government.
As of January 2020, more than 9,400 enemy properties, valued at an estimated Rs 1 lakh crore, were under the control of the Custodian of Enemy Property. A government committee, led by Union Home Minister Amit Shah, oversees the disposal of these assets, reports The Indian Express.
Saif Ali Khan’s next steps
Saif Ali Khan’s legal battle is far from over. As the High Court has suggested, he must now approach the newly established appellate authority to challenge the government’s decision. Meanwhile, Saif, who is recovering from an assault in his home earlier this month, faces an uncertain future regarding the fate of his family’s historical properties. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for other legal heirs of individuals who migrated to enemy nations during the Partition and subsequent conflicts.