The Pataudi family, led by Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan, is embroiled in a protracted legal battle over ancestral properties worth a staggering Rs 15,000 crore. These iconic assets, deeply intertwined with the family’s Nawabi legacy, have been classified as “enemy property” under the Enemy Property Act of 1968. This controversial classification stems from the migration of Abida Sultan, the eldest daughter of Nawab Hamidullah Khan of Bhopal, to Pakistan in 1950. The recent lifting of a 2015 stay by the Madhya Pradesh High Court has brought the Union government closer to seizing control of these properties, sparking renewed debate over the Act’s provisions and implications.
The properties in question include several historical landmarks in Bhopal, such as the Flag Staff House, Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, Dar-Us-Salam, Ahmedabad Palace, and the Kohefiza Property. These assets were inherited by Saif Ali Khan from his grandmother, Sajida Sultan, the second daughter of Nawab Hamidullah Khan. Sajida Sultan chose to remain in India following Partition, while her elder sister, Abida Sultan, migrated to Pakistan in 1950, renouncing her claim to the Nawabi throne and associated properties. This decision made Sajida Sultan the legal heir to her father’s estate.
However, the Custodian of Enemy Property Department declared these properties as enemy assets in 2014, citing Abida Sultan’s migration to Pakistan. Despite the legal recognition of Sajida Sultan’s inheritance, the government’s classification was upheld, triggering a legal battle that continues to this day.
Enacted in 1968, three years after the Indo-Pak war of 1965, the Enemy Property Act allows the Indian government to seize and manage properties left behind by individuals who migrated to Pakistan or China. The Act defines an “enemy” as a country or its citizens that engaged in external aggression against India. Properties belonging to such individuals, termed “enemy properties,” are vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property for India.
The Act was amended in 2017 to remove the rights of heirs to reclaim or inherit these properties. This amendment stated that: “Any enemy property shall continue to be vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India and shall not be restored to any person or entity, including heirs or legal representatives.”
The amendment also nullified past legal judgments that recognised inheritance rights, including a 2005 Supreme Court ruling favoring heirs of enemy property. As of 2024, India has approximately 12,611 enemy properties worth over Rs 1 lakh crore, with the majority linked to Pakistani nationals and a smaller number to Chinese citizens.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s recent ruling, delivered by Justice Vivek Agarwal, directed the Pataudi family to present their case to the appellate authority within 30 days. The court emphasised that the appellate authority should evaluate the appeal on its merits without dismissing it on grounds of delay. However, it remains unclear whether the family has filed the required representation.
This ruling revives the government’s claim over the properties, enabling it to initiate proceedings under the Enemy Property Act. The decision has left the family’s legal position precarious, with the possibility of losing some of their most prized assets.
The Enemy Property Act has long been a contentious issue in Indian politics. During the UPA era, Congress leaders opposed amendments to the Act, citing concerns over fairness and property rights. The party’s opposition was most visible in cases like that of the Raja of Mahmudabad, whose properties worth Rs 30,000 crore were returned following a Supreme Court ruling in his favor. The Modi government’s 2017 amendment nullified such rulings, strengthening the government’s ability to claim and auction enemy properties.
Congress’s stance was criticised as appeasement politics, particularly in the case of Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan, the son of the Raja of Mahmudabad, who received enemy properties despite his family’s association with Pakistan during Partition. In contrast, the Modi government has actively pursued the seizure and monetisation of enemy properties, generating Rs 3,400 crore by 2023 through the sale of movable assets like shares and gold.
India’s approach to enemy property mirrors similar practices in neighboring countries. Pakistan enacted the Evacuee Property Act in 1949, confiscating assets of individuals with ties to India, even distant ones. Bangladesh, too, used its Enemy Property Act to target Bengali Hindus, seizing their properties arbitrarily. These actions highlight the enduring impact of Partition on property rights and national policies.
For Saif Ali Khan, the legal battle is more than a fight over property; it is a bid to preserve his family’s legacy. The actor inherited his share of the properties after the death of his father, Nawab Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, in 2011. Among the assets is the Flag Staff House in Bhopal’s Kohefiza area, where Saif spent his childhood. Losing these properties would be a significant blow, not just financially but also symbolically, as they represent the family’s historical and cultural heritage.
