Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Saif Ali Khan’s Petition Over ‘Enemy Property’ Dispute

Bollywood actor Saif Ali Khan’s petition challenging the designation of the Pataudi family’s property in Bhopal as “enemy property” was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on December 13, 2024. Justice Vivek Agarwal, in a single-bench decision, directed Khan to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, though no action has yet been taken by the actor or his family.

The Dispute

The controversy stems from a 2014 notice issued by the Custodian of Enemy Property Department, declaring properties linked to the Pataudi family as “enemy property.” Valued at approximately ₹15,000 crores, the assets span areas from Kohefiza to Chiklod in Bhopal.

The dispute intensified after a 2016 ordinance by the Government of India clarified that heirs of individuals classified as enemies would have no rights over such properties.

Historical Context

The issue traces back to Bhopal Nawab Hamidullah Khan’s death in 1960. His elder daughter, Abida Sultan, was deemed the heir but had moved to Pakistan in 1950, leading to the designation of these assets as “enemy property.” The Indian government later named Abida’s second daughter, Sabia Sultan, as the successor.

However, the 2016 ordinance nullified such claims, placing the properties under government control.

Khan’s Legal Efforts and Current Status

Saif Ali Khan challenged the designation in 2015, securing a temporary stay on the property. However, the High Court’s recent decision lifted the stay and granted the family 30 days to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The deadline has since expired without any claims submitted by the Khan family.

Impact on Buyers and Future Actions

The declaration has raised concerns among individuals who purchased property from the Pataudi family, fearing they may be labeled as “encroachers” if the government seizes the assets.

The Pataudi family’s next steps remain unclear, as the window for reclaiming the properties appears to be closing rapidly. This case highlights the complexities surrounding historical ownership disputes and the impact of legislation on such matters.

Switch Language »