What’s Saif Ali Khan’s connection with Madhya Pradesh ‘enemy property’ case? | Mumbai News – The Times of India
![](https://net4newsonline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ad6-min.jpg)
Government is claiming control of assets that had passed to the actor’s grandmother from her father, the last nawab of bhopal. a look at how much is at stake and what the law says. TOI explains:
What is ‘enemy property’?
Per the Enemy Property Act, 1968, ‘enemy property’ means assets and possessions of individuals or entities who are nationals of a country with which India is at war, or who have taken hostile actions or acted against India’s interests. Assets left behind in India by individuals or entities who migrated to nations classified as ‘enemy countries’ during periods of conflict are covered under this Act.
Who controls these properties?
The 1968 Act says that enemy property is continuously vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI), under the supervision of the Union home ministry.
What’s the count of enemy properties?
There are over 12,000 properties designated as enemy properties across the country (see list). Their combined value is estimated to be worth over Rs 1 lakh crore.
Who can sell these properties?
The disposal/auction of enemy properties is done under Section 8A of the 1968 Act, and related rules and guidelines. The valuation of immovable enemy property is done by a valuation committee chaired by the district magistrate (DM) of the district where the property is located. The valuation report submitted by the DM is placed by the Custodian before the Enemy Property Disposal Committee, which gives its recommendation to the Union Govt for the disposal of the property or the manner in which it may be dealt with.
The sale of movable property such as stocks is done on the recommendation of a high-level committee that recommends the quantum and price for the sale of ‘shares’. Guidelines for selling enemy properties have been amended, offering priority of purchase to the current occupant of properties valued below Rs 1 crore in rural areas and below Rs 5 crore in urban areas. If declined, such properties are to be disposed of via tenders or public auction.
Where do earnings from sales go?
The 1968 Act says that the proceeds of sale or disposal of enemy properties are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund of India.
Where does Saif fit in?
The properties in question were bequeathed by Saif’s great-grandfather and the last Nawab of Bhopal, Hamidullah Khan. A verification process spanning nine years identified 94 out of 131 such assets as “enemy property”. This was revealed in a response by CEPI to an RTI query.
The issue originates in the move by Abida Sultan, the heir to the Bhopal estate, to relocate to Pakistan three years after Partition. That led to the transfer of the last Nawab’s properties to Sajida Sultan. Sajida was married to the Nawab of Pataudi, Iftikhar Ali Khan. Their son, Mansur Ali Khan ‘Tiger’ Pataudi Jr, was Saif’s father.
The Centre took control of these properties in 2015 after a three-year investigation by CEPI. But that decision was challenged in court. There is a high court stay on the matter. In his argument before MP high court, the family’s lawyer argued that Sajida Sultan was declared legal heir to Hamidullah Khan by Indian govt in 1961 through a gazette notication. The 2015 CEPI letter also cited the takeover of properties belonging to Abida Sultan.
How much are the properties worth?
The RTI reply valued the cumulative 113.6 acres of immovable assets at Rs 1,796 crore. CEPI provided details of the assessment barely three weeks after MP high court instructed Saif and his mother, actor Sharmila Tagore, to approach home ministry’s appellate authority for information regarding the assets vested as ‘enemy property’. The Pataudis didn’t have any legal representation at the Dec 13 hearing.
Unconfirmed reports suggest that CEPI has given the state govt a list of 133 properties, covering 1,600 acres, to investigate. It includes palaces, prime real estate and various farms across MP’s Bhopal, Sehore and Raisen districts. The district administration and revenue department officials refused to comment on the matter.