The Madhya Pradesh High Court has asked Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan to approach the appellate authority against an order of the central government. The said order has declared historical properties of the Pataudi family in Bhopal, estimated to be worth 15,000 crores, as “enemy property.”
The case concerning Khan’s has been in the court since 2015. On December 13 last year, the government apprised the court that an “appellate authority has been constituted for adjudication of disputes in regard to enemy property.” Following this, Justice Vivek Agarwal said the parties could file a representation within 30 days. Meanwhile, there is no update on whether the actor approached the tribunal by January 12.
Advertisement
The court stated, “If a representation is filed within 30 days from today, the appellate authority shall not advert to the aspect of limitation and shall deal with the appeal on its own merits.”
What is “enemy property”? Which of Saif’s properties fall under the category?
Enemy property comprises movable and non-movable assets left behind in India by individuals who migrated to countries categorised as “enemy nations” during times of conflict.
Following the wars between India and Pakistan in 1965 and 1971 and the Sino-Indian War in 1962, the Indian government took control of properties and businesses owned by those who migrated to Pakistan and China.
Coming to Saif Ali Khan, several of his properties are under scrutiny under the law. These include the Flag Staff House, where Saif spent his childhood. Additional properties are the luxury hotel Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, Dar-Us-Salam, Bungalow of Habibi, Ahmedabad Palace, and Kohefiza Property.
Why is Saif Ali Khan’s properties under the radar?
In 1947, the Nawab Hamidullah Khan ruled the princely state of Bhopal. He had three daughters, the eldest- Abida Sultan, migrated to Pakistan in 1950. The second daughter- Sajida Sultan, stayed in India and tied the knot with Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi. He was a celebrated cricketer who played for both England and India. His son was the legendary cricketer Mansoor Ali Khan ‘Tiger’ Pataudi. Saif Ali Khan is the son of Tiger Pataudi.
As per the natural order of inheritance, Sajida’s grandson, Saif Ali Khan inherited a share of the properties in Bhopal. However, the migration of Abida Sultan to Pakistan became the centre of the government’s claim to the properties as “enemy property.”
In 2014, the Custodian of Enemy Property Department declared the Pataudi family’s properties in Bhopal as “enemy property”. Subsequently, the Bollywood star challenged the custodian’s notice. Following this, in 2016, an Ordinance surfaced explicitly stating that heirs would have no rights over these properties. However, in a turn of events, in 2019, the court recognized Sajida Sultan as the legal heir. However, the recent ruling has once again put the properties at stake.
As per updates, Bhopal collector Kaushalendra Vikram Singh has announced plans to examine the ownership records of these properties over the last 72 years. As reported by NDTV, he stated that individuals staying on these lands may be treated as tenants. This comes under the state’s leasing laws.
How will Saif’s claim to inheritance affect the case?
As per the Enemy Property Act of 1968, properties declared as “enemy property” remain permanently vested with the Custodian of Enemy Property. There is no room for inheritance or transfer. This is regardless of whether the legal heir is an Indian citizen or a national of a non-enemy country.
However, Indian Express noted an interesting case that sets a different precedence, the case of Raja of Mahmudabad in Uttar Pradesh. The Raja owned several properties in Hazratganj (Lucknow), Sitapur, and Nainital. Subsequently, he migrated to Pakistan in 1957 and acquired Pakistani citizenship. However, his wife and son remained in India as citizens.
In view of the 1968 law, the court declared Raja’s properties enemy assets. Upon the Raja’s death, his son, Mohammad Amir Mohammad Khan contested the designation. Moreover, he sought ownership of the properties. In a landmark judgement, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the son, recognizing his right to inherit the properties. However, the following 2016 ordinance noted above overruled prior court verdicts. The legislation iterated that enemy property would remain with the Custodian. This is irrespective of inheritance claims or any change in the person’s nationality or status.
Given the complexity of the case and the expansive properties in question housing several tenants, the fate of the properties remains to be seen.
Also Read: Gautam Adani reacts to reports of Taylor Swift performing at Jeet Adani’s wedding
