In a significant legal development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has cleared the way for the Indian government to seize Pataudi Palace, valued at $180 billion, and several other prominent properties owned by the family of actor Saif Ali Khan. The ruling, based on Indian law, allows for the confiscation of assets linked to individuals or families that migrated to Pakistan following the 1947 Partition.
The properties in question include Pataudi Palace in Haryana, as well as Noor-Us-Sabah Palace, Dar-Us-Salam, and Kohefiza Property. These assets are connected to the Nawab of Bhopal’s family, reflecting the enduring legacy of the Pataudi family after the partition. The court ruled that the Enemy Property Act of 1968, amended in 2017, applies to this case, which grants the government the right to seize these historic properties.
Under the amended act, the government can take control of assets belonging to individuals or families that migrated to Pakistan, considering such properties as “enemy property.” This legal framework directly ties to the case of Hamidullah Khan, the last Nawab of Bhopal, who had three daughters. Following the partition, one of his daughters, Abida Sultan, migrated to Pakistan, while another, Sajida Sultan, married Nawab Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi and remained in India.
Legal experts explain that the connection to Abida Sultan’s migration strengthens the claim that these properties may now be categorized as “enemy property.” As a result, Saif Ali Khan, the grandson of Sajida Sultan, inherited a portion of these assets, which now face the prospect of confiscation.
The recent decision has reignited a long-standing family dispute over the properties, particularly following a 2019 ruling where the Indian court recognized Sajida Sultan as the legal heir to the assets. Despite this, the latest court ruling lifts a 2015 stay on these properties, enabling the government to move forward with their potential seizure due to their historical connection to Saif Ali Khan’s family.
The ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities surrounding the application of the Enemy Property Act and its broader implications for the families affected by the Partition.
